Campaigns Mercifully End

01Nov10

Miron Campaign Worker

Thank goodness that after tomorrow we can answer our phones again without fearing a robo call from some really annoying candidate. It is hard to describe how uninformative this campaign season has been on so many levels.

Almost every GOP candidate for anything criticizes everything Congress has done as if they were never involved. Every Democratic candidate behaves as if they were never there in the first place.

In the two local Congressional congressional races you have a clearly more qualified candidate (Jim Himes) running against a radical conservative who is more than willing to pass every big business tax cut that comes to his attention.

Then you have Rosa DeLauro (who appears in the district every two years) running against a Tea Party candidate Labriola. Can we get serious here?

No one, not a single candidate, has said a word about an actual plan to solve the problem of 17 MILLION unemployed Americans. Neither a Democrat nor a Republican has brought up the simple fact that on November 30th, all unemployment benefits beyond the standard 26 weeks ends for everybody. What effect will MILLIONS of Americans with zero income have on this fragile economy?

Locally the picture is even bleaker. They are essentially the same old Republican and Democratic Town Committee members running again.
By far, the nastiest campaign of them all has been waged by the disgraced James R. Miron. He just won’t go away, will he? He criticizes Kevin Kelly for misrepresenting himself yet almost everything Miron says Kelly has hidden is posted right on Kelly’s website. For whatever reason, Kelly refuses to bring up Miron’s disastrous four years of rule in Stratford. At least in this case the choice is clear: Write in candidate Captain Joseph McNeil.

The latest round of robo calls (yes, that was the voice of Heather Habelka) comes from Miron’s BFF, Kent Miller criticizing Paul Kurmay for being re-elected so many times. The last time I looked Kurmay was not disciplined by the CT Bar Association as Miller was. This candidate must clearly be a joke on voters by the Stratford DTC.

The only good thing about this entire campaign season is that it ends tomorrow night.

Like this:

Jeze.
I have to give you credit on your initial posts.
Often very good or interesting graphics.
Usually has good insights, besides mocking Miron.

here is a thought for you….
Jimmy’s campaign against Kelly was actually worse than his Mayorship.
However it was much shorter.
And Jimmy, Kent, and the others basically “phoned it in.”
They didn’t even pretend they wanted to win ….

The (D) message for Kent was soooo bad, the woman didn’t even
know what years Kent was Councilman at Large.

I had messages from Jim, Kent, and some ex-fireman.
I had several messages from McMahon.

I know it wasn’t your intention but I had to laugh at your labeling Dan Debicella a “radical conservative” (an oxymoron, no?)

Danny is about as moderate, establishment Republican as they come (OK, maybe he’s slightly to the right of Lincoln Chafee but who isn’t?).

In fact, while I do hope Danny delivers a well-deserved defeat to Himes – an avowed “Progressive” who thinks his Goldman-inspired policies have worked wonders on the economy and not just made his friends even wealthier – in a normal cycle the candidates would be hard to differentiate.

(For full discloser, I supported the only radical in the Republican primary: Rich Torres, a radical classical liberal).

“Can we get serious here?” – But that spoils all the fun… haven’t you seen the latest Christine O’Donnell scandal…

“No one, not a single candidate, has said a word about an actual plan to solve the problem of 17 MILLION unemployed Americans.” – While most are of dubious value, a number of candidates from both parties have put forward plans.

You seem to be forgetting that this and the previous administration have implemented a number of jobs plans over the last couple years. The stimuli was supposed to stop job losses and create millions of new jobs. During his State of the Union, President Obama launched his “National Export Initiative,” his plan to create 2 million jobs over the next five years. Then there is President Obama’s jobs plan for favored special interests (monopolistic public employee unions) and bureaucrats.

How have those plans been working out in the real world? I will leave the obvious unstated and just quote from Ariel Goldring (channeling Henry Hazlitt):

“When a politician announces plans to create jobs–such as President Obama’s seemingly forgotten promise to ‘create or save 2.5 million jobs’–he presents half the equation. Surely he can create jobs, but at a cost of other jobs. Some are created, while others are destroyed. For this ‘job creation’ to occur, jobs shift from the efficient private sector to the often deliberately inefficient public sector. But the public sector’s growth is visible. The result is a political gain at an economic loss (http://freemarketmojo.com/?p=13242 ).”

And those jobs “created” are at costs far exceeding the private sector. According to Glenn Hall $150 billion in stimuli “created or save” 650,000 jobs, meaning “that each job costs the government roughly $230,000, or four times the median household income (http://freemarketmojo.com/?p=4214 ).”

“For whatever reason, Kelly refuses to bring up Miron’s disastrous four years of rule ” – I heard Kelly in the debate say the race was not about Miron’s failed mayoralty in Stratford. Maybe Kelly is heading Napoleon’s advice: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

“The only good thing about this entire campaign season is that it ends tomorrow night.” – Cheer-up Jez. Just think of what this campaign could have looked like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI (Attack Ads, Circa 1800).

E.g. “John Adams is a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

If Jefferson wins “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of the distressed, the soil will be soaked with blood…”

To my point about the two parties being two feathers of the same collectivist bird (apologies to the rare exceptions):

“President Obama says, ‘The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.’ He’s on the campaign trail warning voters about ‘returning to the very same policies that failed us during the last decade.’

If he’s talking about bailouts, ineffective stimulus packages, and massive government spending, then we won’t be returning to them because we’ve never left in the first place. The continuities between George W. Bush and Barack Obama and their parties are far more disturbing than the differences.

“Danny is about as moderate, establishment Republican as they come”
Having heard Debicella during a debate state that the problem with healthcare was that the insurance companies weren’t making enough profit was literally jawdropping. To me that was as radical as you get.

“The stimuli was supposed to stop job losses and create millions of new jobs. During his State of the Union, President Obama”
The only glimmer of hope I see is that at least he is talking about jobs whereas Bush had no idea what they were.

Tax cuts for the wealthy (the GOP mantra) have not created jobs either. Nonetheless, 9.6% (MUCH higher by any other estimate) of the population will be losing whatever meager income they’ve had on November 30th. Originally the bill set a Dec 31 deadline, but our gutless congress decided that Thanksgiving was enough of a holiday. Once again, how will all those people who will have zero income affect the jobs of everyone else?

“I heard Kelly in the debate say the race was not about Miron’s failed mayoralty in Stratford.” While I hesitate to prevent anyone from voting for “ANYONE BUT MIRON”, perhaps Kelly’s involvement with the Town from 2005-2009 is not something he wants to talk about especially since it was Kelly’s legal position as Town Attorney that allowed Miron to run in the first place.

“E.g. “John Adams is a hideous hermaphroditical character with neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

At least he didn’t stomp on Adams’ head or have him placed in handcuffs. (Even though he may have wanted to).

With all due respect Torres was the radical (classical liberal) in the primary, and I’m am the most radical (classical liberal) avatar here.

Debicella does not appear to support repeal of ObamaCare. He would rather tweak the bill, perhaps including, as you say, giving more goodies to insurance companies (really, though, with the national government forcing people to be their customers under threat of fines, could insurance comapnies ask for anything more?)

Himes, on the other hand, supports an extremist “Progressive” agenda that is seeking to expand national government command-and-control into every facet of our lives. That, my friend, is not radical; it’s revolutionary.

“The only glimmer of hope I see is that at least he is talking about jobs whereas Bush had no idea what they were.” Really? Consult video above. ObamaBush or BushObama, it’s hard to tell the difference between the rightist “Progressive” and the leftish “Progressive.”

Do you realize that unemployment in 1979 was… wait for it… about 8%. In the depths of malaise that was the first coming of Jimmy Carter, unemployment was significantly less than it is now. Of course this was coupled with double-digit inflation, which masked real unemployment.

While you’re right about 17 million being the true unemployment number, it’s also worth noting that about 9 million additional workers have taken part-time jobs after not being able to find full-time employment.

“Tax cuts for the wealthy (the GOP mantra) have not created jobs either.” – Supply-side tax policies in certain settings (JFK’s admin, for example) have proven effective. I have my misgivings, moral and economic, which I can elaborate if you wish. Suffice it to say for now that targeted tax cuts (such as those in the stimuli) are not a magical cure-all for government spending problems. Suffice it also to say that Keith Richard disagrees with you on taxing the rich and ably shows how the rich avoiding paying, rendering the rates largely symbolic:

“The Stones are famously tax-averse. I broach the subject with Keith in Camp X-Ray, as he calls his backstage lair. There is incense in the air and Ronnie Wood drifts in and out–it is, in other words, a perfect venue for such a discussion. ‘The whole business thing is predicated a lot on the tax laws,’ says Keith, Marlboro in one hand, vodka and juice in the other. ‘It’s why we rehearse in Canada and not in the U.S. A lot of our astute moves have been basically keeping up with tax laws, where to go, where not to put it. Whether to sit on it or not. We left England because we’d be paying 98 cents on the dollar. We left, and they lost out. No taxes at all.'”

“Once again, how will all those people who will have zero income affect the jobs of everyone else?” – We’ve got the “stag” part down. Now this administration is working on the “flation.”

Do you want to create the right economic conditions so the private sector can create millions of jobs? Here is one idea:

Needless to say, I favor the kind of verbal free-for-all that existed in the Founder’s time. Actual violence of any kind, whether from the right or left, is against the letter and spirit of our “glorious liberty document” (to borrow Frederick Douglas’ phrase).

On that note, we owe a debt of gratitude to Christopher Kennedy, son of the late Robert F. Kennedy and chairman of the board of trustees at the University of Illinois.

“There is nothing more antithetical to the hopes for a university that is lively and yet civil, or to the hopes of our founding fathers for their great experiment of a self-governing people, than to permanently seal off debate with one’s opponents by killing them…. There can be no place in a democracy to celebrate political assassinations or to honor those who do so.”

“Himes, on the other hand, supports an extremist “Progressive” agenda that is seeking to expand national government command-and-control into every facet of our lives.”
PORTIA! Were you the cartoon character on the right in the first video?

“Do you want to create the right economic conditions so the private sector can create millions of jobs? Here is one idea:”
So you’re saying that under Clinton when U.S. job growth was at it’s peak and there was a budget surplus it was a good thing. Then why would the GOP not want to turn the tax code back to those good times?

The non-philosophical problem is that 17 million people (more than the populations of 21 States combined according to your video) will be without any support or income in less than 30 days. If I recall, the period between Thanksgiving and Christmas was sort of important to the retail industry….

“Suffice it to say for now that targeted tax cuts (such as those in the stimuli) are not a magical cure-all for government spending problems.”
In philosophical terms, as long as banks and other financial investment firms keeping placing their bets (with our money) in the Big Casino (Wall Street) instead of actually investing it, there will be no job creation.

DILBERT for PRESIDENT
ALFRED E NEWMAN = VP
SIMPSONS and SOUTH PARK for DEFENSE and STATE

—-

PORTIA: Needless to say, I favor the kind of verbal free-for-all that
existed in the Founder’s time.
Actual violence of any kind, whether from the right or left, is against
the letter and spirit of our “glorious liberty document”
(to borrow Frederick Douglas’ phrase).

GEO: I too am against violence for various reasons below.
However IF IT WERE NOT FOR VIOLENT REVOLUTION,
the “glorious liberty document(s)” would not have existed.
1 – Against 10 commandments & humanistics.
2 – Perpetuates cycles, worsening situations.
3 – Invariably the wrong targets, eliminating symptoms, not causes.
4 – Plays into the hands of the causals.
5 – Effects on the families, who are mostly innocent.
6 – Against the Law.
7 – Does not solve problems.

–

JEZE do we have new contributors?
Or are those new names, from the same IPs?

Good Morning.
I hope each and every reader as well as the writers of this site get out and VOTE today. It is time to give the government a well deserved “enema” (to quote George) and elect people that represent the people. It is time to put those out of work who have put people out of work with the policies they have supported.

While we all may not agree on certain topics, today is the day to voice your opinion at the polls. Cast your vote wisely, we cannot afford more ignorance.

Sudds has writen he has voted for me.
Portia has agreed with many of my positions (far from all) and has been
kind (far kinder to me) in general support?
Chris and I have mutual respect for political views.
Ron and I agree on much, except minitiae.
Star, Phyllis, and others have personally revealed their identities and
been exceedly kind in their remarks.

Jeze and I go head to head often, but we respect each other’s caring
about others and Stratford.

If Mike R, Kane, and Cyclops write anything nice, I would be almost as
shocked as if Jimmy, Dickie and the DTC fessed up and / or accepted
blame and apportioned appropriate credit.

I expect nothing from the country club clique, nor the Bridgeport
barristers, including Berchump’s badstars, and the fetid federals fascists
or contemptual Connecticut concaternation congeries cronies!

Has anyone else gotten stratford Democratic party voice mails
which state Hartford “does NOT give Stratford it’s fair share because
Stratford voters do not elect Democrats to serve in Hartford?”

Have they admitted a civil, criminal, or constitutional violation of
the Rights to the Stratford People and Businesses?

–

Perhaps a law suit involving the “Sherman Anti Trust Act” against both
political parties and/or a “Racketeering Influence and Corruption
Organization act” law suit against both political parties is in order.

Adam Brill and friends do not even realize it is wrong
to use politics against American people
who do NOT vote for their gang?

EQUAL PROTECTION of the LAW?

Both political parties have no sense of being for AMERICANS
and FREEDOM of SPEACH, and FREE WILL!

“I prefer the first video from Bleak” – I subscribe to the notion that intellectual honesty demands giving your opponent the strongest statement of their own ideas, even if that means that you must argue against yourself to do so. It is rather tawdry to knock down a straw man of your own making; a mere mockery of your opponent’s real positions.

I actually like the Leftish Bunny because he (unwittingly?) exposes the bipartisan consensus against the Constitution. ObamaCare unconstitutional? No, it is a compromise bill that has a number of Republican ideas in it. What? That answer is to completely doge the question. Several judges have weighed in and shown the issue to be legitimate (not that anyone is noticing). The individual mandate is authoritarian? No, it is to protect insurance comapnies. What? That is another complete doge, but does prove my point about how ObamaCare makes the bad elements of the current system (insurance company cartels) even worse.

As for fascism (national socialism) and communism (international socialism) they are, of course, not the same things nor are throwing those terms around all that relevant to our present situation. Suffice it to say that the attacks on individual economic and civil liberties that are necessitated by this and the prior administration’s command-and-control of the economy are anathema to the classical liberal spirit of our founders and the system of government (democratic republic) that they bequeathed to us.

“As for Saint Reagan, don’t you remember 17% mortgage interest rates? Huge increases in defense spending coupled with tax cuts for businesses? Trickle down economics?” – Reagan was, unfortunately, much better in word during the 1960s than he ever was in deed during the 1980s. It was a great accomplishment to slow the growth of the national government but that was a far cry from his promises to dismantle abominations like the Department of Education.

You can dismiss “trickle down” but the chief supply-sider economist Robert Mundell (who had successful advised Presidents Kennedy and Regan) received a Nobel; no slouch he.

While, as stated, I am not a supply-sider, I find it curious that so many people who deride the validity of tax cutting as a way to increase revenue don’t realize that their own sacred cow, government intervention on the demand-side with fiscal stimuli, not only has less validity; it has no validity at all. The mythical multiplier of government spending simply does not exist. In other words, *they* are all Keynesians, whether right or left, Democrat or Republican. Not surprisingly, President Obama’s stimuli measures included tax cut provisions.

“PORTIA! Were you the cartoon character on the right in the first video?” – No, unless that bunny also read much of yjr TARP Inspector General’s Report, the court ruling overturning the Gulf moratorium, listened to then-General Kagan argue against free speech before the Supreme Court and President Obama due so in his State of the Union…

“So you’re saying that under Clinton when U.S. job growth was at it’s peak and there was a budget surplus it was a good thing.” – Clinton was the most pro-free market capitalist president we’ve had since Reagan. I previously complemented him and cited a report from CATO on his many accomplishments.

“Then why would the GOP not want to turn the tax code back to those good times?” – I can’t speak for the GOP but would say that the tax code is only one piece of the puzzle. And, if I recall correctly, Clinton raised personal income taxes but coupled that with the lowering of corporate tax rates. I am no fan of the Bush tax cuts, which help enable over 40% of the population to pay no taxes at all.

While we’re on the subject, what do you think the marginal tax rates should be?

“The non-philosophical problem” – I don’t find that video philosophical, especially given that the fiscal stimuli has failed. Maybe government should try implementing policies supported by empirical evidence, no?

And its about 27 million (unemployed and underemployed) workers that have been impacted by this crisis. President Obama’s response?

President Obama said he is “feeling great about where the American people are, considering what we’ve gone through.” – Really? You feel “great” about millions of Americans out of work, record poverty, a skyrocketing deficit, faltering economy, nationalizations, bailouts, increasing illegality? How about how America’s ranking among free economies has taken a great fall while the country’s perception of corruption has dramatically increased? https://stratfordcharter.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/the-dark-side/#comment-14667

Jez, I think you have to explain at some point how national government “help” for these people is not doing more harm than good. As previously stated, I think we should once and for all settle on a set duration for unemployment and end this administration’s beloved crisis-mentality, with its wretched uncertainty and breeding of dependency, which are hurting individuals and stalling a true recovery.

“as long as banks and other financial investment firms keeping placing their bets (with our money) in the Big Casino (Wall Street) instead of actually investing it, there will be no job creation.” – Agreed. Now why don’t you agree that we need to end national government intervention which is allowing these firms to place bets with our money? See Professors Roberts above. Free market capitalism, as he points out, is supposed to be a profit and loss system. Privatizing profits and socializing risks is corporate socialism/crony capitalism, i.e, not the real thing. We have now been experimenting with this system with two administrations, those of Presidents Bush and Obama. Just maybe it’s time now to try something that actually works.

Mid-term exam! Given the general lack of civic literacy, even by those who profess to be on the side of liberty, I propose everyone take this online quiz: http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx Its 33 questions are the same ones administered to college freshman and seniors each year. Ideally, everyone would post their score, no matter how embarrassing. I’ll start off: 31/33.

Not to stir up another hornet’s nest, but do you really want to go with this argument:

“It was a great accomplishment to slow the growth of the national government but that was a far cry from his promises to dismantle abominations like the Department of Education.”

According to Sheldon Richman,

“Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan’s 3%—in the government’s take of “national income.” And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan’s requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.”

I’m not sure what metric you are referring to when you use the phrase “growth of the national government,” but it seems even free market analysts felt betrayed by “the Gipper.”

Also, how is it you can praise Mundell by citing his Nobel prize as a mark of his gravitas within the field of economics, but you condemn Krugman’s work, despite the fact he also received a Nobel for his work in the field of economics?

You missed my point, surprising given how clear it was. When I wrote that Regan was better in word than in deed I was obviously agreeing with what he said in the speech excerpted above while bemoaning his failures in office to restore constitutional, limited government.

While the growth of government did not abate, it was at least slowed under his tenure. For that we should be thankful. I highly doubt, however, that you would be satisfied with the level of government the puritanical libertarians (and anarcho-capitalists) at the Mises Institute desire. Really, Chris, you think Reagan was wrong for not cutting government enough? In that case, I agree with you.

For a more balanced assessment: “Government spending continued to grow, there was little devolution of power to the states, and the cost of federal regulation continued to increase. Instead of abolishing two Cabinet departments, as he had promised (Education and Energy), he created one (Veterans Affairs). We owe to him the presidencies of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, neither of whom shared his commitment to liberty and limited government (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2683 ).”

“growth of the national government” – while government continued to grow under Reagan the rate was slower, especially in relation to the great growth in the economy (1983-1990: total employment growth of 19.9 million jobs, average annual real GDP growth of 4.1% (35.7% total growth for the period), industrial growth of 28.9%, real GDP per person average annual growth of 3.2% (26.7% total growth for the period).

“free market analysts felt betrayed” – We’re always betrayed, but it’s better to be betrayed than never listened to in the first place.

“you condemn Krugman’s work, despite the fact he also received a Nobel for his work in the field of economics?” – I condemn much of Krugman’s normative analysis, the leftish partisan articles in the NYT, which, btw, is not what he won the Nobel for. He won the Nobel for positive, technical free trade research he did decades ago. I have previously written about the important distinction between positive and normative analysis. Since you found your way to the Mises Institute, I trust you can also google those terms and learn their meaning in economics.

“…Krugman himself admits [in “The Return of Depression Economics”] by p. 3, that he has ‘a private theory, based on no evidence whatsoever,’ about the sudden fall of the Soviet Union. The rest of the booklet follows this same line of reasoning: Krugman presents his vague, short thoughts, and keeps them floating freely, not anchored even in simple, well-known facts….

Krugman thinks that overvalued currencies and random, self-fulfilling panics brought about the crises. His solutions are lasting inflation (in the 3-4 percent range), devaluation, tariffs and capital controls. Briefly: wise politicians and even wiser economists know, according to Krugman, how to compensate for the masses’ unpredictable mood swings, and who also know how to price currencies (http://www.brookesnews.com/102806krugman.html ).”

“Those who support Keynesian economics can cite just as many facts and figures to support their positions as those who support the Monetarists.” – They can but that does not make their core fallacious reasoning any less false. I guess you missed my point that supply-siders *are* Keynesians. For the record, I am not a Monetarist, either. My affiliation is with no formal school. I am just a humble advocate of classical liberal and free-market capitalist principles and policies ideas based on those principles, because they are the only ones consistent with individual liberty.

“Perhaps, just perhaps, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.” – No, in some cases, there actually isn’t common ground. You can’t be half-pregnant; the multiplier does or does not exist in the real world (it doesn’t).

For someone who once claimed to oppose “theoretical” arguments, it is surprising that you are endorsing a doctrine that has never worked in the real world, whether in the US and UK in the 1930s, African countries in the last few decades, or more recently in Japan.

“There was a couple of trick Tea Party questions though.” – Yeah, that first one was a dozy. “Which of the following are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence?” That would be “life, respect, and equal protection,” right?

“Privatizing profits and socializing risks is corporate socialism/crony capitalism, i.e, not the real thing. We have now been experimenting with this system with two administrations, those of Presidents Bush and Obama. Just maybe it’s time now to try something that actually works.”

We absolutely agree here. Although I would have used the word “theft” instead of “socialism”. (Now, now…don’t start with me again). Glass Steagall seemed to work just fine.

“Now why don’t you agree that we need to end national government intervention which is allowing these firms to place bets with our money?”
They had been gambling with our money for a long time before TARP. You just can’t possibly lose that much money overnight. All of it was our money. Our 401K’s, pensions, IRA’s, Roth’s, cash savings…all of it. And then they ask for more and Bush/Paulson just said, “How much and where can we back the armored truck up?”

They still do it! They borrow our money at zero percent and go to the next window and buy Treasury Notes with it and we pay them 3% for lending us our money.

Why do you continue to insult me when I simply pointed out that your description of Reagan’s “great accomplishment to slow the growth of the national government” is refuted by individuals consistent with your beliefs.

I understand the meaning of positive and normative analysis in economics. Your smugness (“Since you found your way to the Mises Institute, I trust you can also google those terms and learn their meaning in economics”) simply comes across as a way to deflect from the fact that your praise of Reagan for slowing the growth of national government is inconsistent with the facts. You called his slowing the growth of the national government a “great accomplishment.” I didn’t miss your point. I understand that you believe he betrayed other free market principles, but your statement about cutting growth in national government is at odds with the facts. You praised Reagan for slowing growth in national government when nothing could be further from the truth.

And I never said I opposed all theoretical arguments, I was simply pointing out that the FDA was in place when penicillin came to market and the agency did not restrict its use. Regardless of what the FDA was or wasn’t when penicillin was discovered, the fact remains that nothing of the sort occurred with respect to this particular drug.

Finally, my midterm exam score: 30/33. Some of the questions were so ridiculous it is impossible to get them wrong.

“Some of the questions were so ridiculous it is impossible to get them wrong.”
Actually, some were fairly slanted and could not be answered correctly unless you were an anti-government activist. Some questions required debates as answers not the provided multiple choice answers.

Early in the Reagan years I was struck by the Statement that the
“Reagan Republicans were not really Republicans, but Democrats
who got rich.”

Reagan was also a supporter of many Democratic candidates, that
included Hubert Humphrey, late 1960s.

Reagan was paid a staggering sum in the 1950s to host the GE Theater
on TV. The one with the 20 mule team borax commercials.
Mule = Symbol of the U. S. ARMY
Donkey = Symbol of the Democrats

Reagan was also an FBI informer during the McCarthy years, when he was
President of the Screen Actors Guild.
Retrospectively McCarthy was correct. The Military did have commies
in their midsts.

During the Cold War, both the Russians and Americans embraced leftist
and rightist dictators who oppressed their peoples. The answer was,
“Yes he is a Dictator, but he is our Dictator.”

As my letter to the Stratford Star pointed out last week.
During the Bush – Cheney years, the USA transferred huge wealth to the
PETRO DICTATORS of O.P.E.C., North Sea Kingdoms, British (commonwealth)
Empire, Russia, Brazil, and Vietnam.
We also sent huge numbers of our jobs to:
India, China, Phillipines, Brazil, Ireland, and many English speaking countries.
We helped set up the former Warsaw Pact countries.
Big OIL, WAR Profiteers, BIG BANKS, and FINANCIAL insiders stoled Trillions.

Some might claim it was the FREE MARKET.
Others might claim it was a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
Others might claim the power that are, simply reconsolidated.

“Why do you continue to insult me when I simply pointed out that your description of Reagan’s ‘great accomplishment to slow the growth of the national government’ is refuted by individuals consistent with your beliefs.” – My intention is not to insult you. My intention is to not have my position distorted. I don’t much like that you seem to be looking only for an error on which to hang your hat, rather than addressing the substance of what I’m writing. Nevertheless, it does give me some pleasure to prove that your search has once again been fruitless and must continue in vain; Reagan did slow the growth of government.

While I clearly bemoaned Reagan’s actual results in office falling short of his inspiring rhetoric from decades prior, my statement was correct. For example, according to an analysis in the 2004 St. Louis Federal Reserve Review, national government “[s]pending growth did slow in the mid-1980s and actually decreased in the mid-1990s. By the year 2000, however, per capita spending increased once again.” See: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/01/GarrettRhine.pdf

Perhaps at the time the article you cited came out (1988) all the numbers had not yet been crunched. At least I learned from this how successful President Clinton and the Congressional Republicans were in not just slowing, but actually reducing, government spending in the 1990s. This evidence further substantiates my oft stated praise for the 42nd President, especially in comparison to either Presidents Bush or Obama. I hope Jez and George note that I just said President Clinton, in practice and albeit due to political necessity more than ideology, was more successful at shrinking government than President Reagan. And for that, he is owed our gratitude. (Note Clinton gave us some inspiring rhetoric that also bears rehearing:

“My duty tonight is to report on the state of the Union — not the state of our government, but of our American community; and to set forth our responsibilities, in the words of our Founders, to form a more perfect union.

The state of the Union is strong. Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades. We have the lowest combined rates of unemployment and inflation in 27 years. We have created nearly 8 million new jobs, over a million of them in basic industries, like construction and automobiles. America is selling more cars than Japan for the first time since the 1970s. And for three years in a row, we have had a record number of new businesses started in our country.

Our leadership in the world is also strong, bringing hope for new peace. And perhaps most important, we are gaining ground in restoring our fundamental values. The crime rate, the welfare and food stamp rolls, the poverty rate and the teen pregnancy rate are all down. And as they go down, prospects for America’s future go up.

We live in an age of possibility. A hundred years ago we moved from farm to factory. Now we move to an age of technology, information, and global competition….

We know big government does not have all the answers. We know there’s not a program for every problem. We have worked to give the American people a smaller, less bureaucratic government in Washington. And we have to give the American people one that lives within its means.

The era of big government is over. But we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves. Instead, we must go forward as one America, one nation working together to meet the challenges we face together. Self-reliance and teamwork are not opposing virtues; we must have both.

I believe our new, smaller government must work in an old-fashioned American way, together with all of our citizens through state and local governments, in the workplace, in religious, charitable and civic associations. Our goal must be to enable all our people to make the most of their own lives — with stronger families, more educational opportunity, economic security, safer streets, a cleaner environment in a safer world….

Our country is and always has been a great and good nation.”)

Btw, anrcho-capitalists are about as consistent with my positions as Mironista Democrats are with Jez’s positions.

“…deflect from the fact that your praise of Reagan for slowing the growth of national government is inconsistent with the facts”; “You praised Reagan for slowing growth in national government when nothing could be further from the truth.” – See above.

“You called his slowing the growth of the national government a ‘great accomplishment.’ – It is a great accomplishment to slow government growth; the trend line is ever upward. However, and as I just wrote above based on new information (new to me), President Clinton achieved a far greater accomplished: he actually reduced government spending.

“I was simply pointing out that the FDA was in place when penicillin came to market and the agency did not restrict its use.” – Why don’t you acknowledge regulatory evolution? The FDA of the penicillin era was not the FDA of today. If it was, penicillin probably wouldn’t have been approved. You have to grasp this since you cited elsewhere your support for a law which helped give us the modern FDA. What is remarkable is you will talk about anything but the issue: the FDA is causing is inflicting suffering and death on untold Americans because it does not recognize our rights to our own bodies. Maybe you’re cool with that. Judging from your uncaring, morally equivocating response previously, you probably are. But then intellectual honesty demands you to not deny that these people exist; it’s your problem to explain them away.

While I think his positions are objectively evil and he is a wannabe commissar command-and-control freak, President Obama’s hearing-dodging appointee to Medicare, Dr. Donald Berwick, is at least honest: government must ration health care, preventative care is overrated, and people are going to have to die to ensure an efficient, universal system of “care” for all:

“Regardless of what the FDA was or wasn’t when penicillin was discovered, the fact remains that nothing of the sort occurred with respect to this particular drug.” – Missing the point, again. To reiterate: the modern FDA would probably not approve penicillin – a miracle drug which has helped millions of people and spurned whole new areas of medical innovation. If penicillin probably wouldn’t get approved today, what other potential miracle drugs are not even being submitted for testing due to fear of rejection? Regulations have consequences, good or bad, intended and unintended. You myopically believe that there are only intended consequences, and those must be good. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, real people who needless are paying the price for your false sense of collectivist “safety,” you choose to remain in Plato’s cave, in willful ignorance of the world outside.

“Actually, some were fairly slanted and could not be answered correctly unless you were an anti-government activist. Some questions required debates as answers not the provided multiple choice answers.” – LOL.

Truth be told, I was not happy with one of the questions I got wrong:
“Which of the following fiscal policy combinations would a government most likely follow to stimulate economic activity when the economy is in a severe recession?”

I hastily chose “D. decreasing both taxes and spending.” The “correct” answer was “C. decreasing taxes and increasing spending.” I was right that a government *should* decrease both. The key words were *most likely.* Of course government would *most likey* not do the right thing.

As for the smear “anti-government activist,” only if you claim Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, et al., you know, the guys who invented our government, were anti-government activists. There is a difference between being anti-Big Government (pro limited, constitutional government) and pro-anarchy.

And, for the record, ISI, the organization that sponsors the quiz, is mainstream conservative. On a related note: ISI was the target of a frivolous, multimillion dollar lawsuit from… Christine O’Donnell.

Interesting. That is my intention as well. How surprising that you take offense while engaging in exactly the same type of distortion with respect to other’s positions.

“I don’t much like that you seem to be looking only for an error on which to hang your hat, rather than addressing the substance of what I’m writing.”

I did focus on the substance of your comment Portia. You didn’t like where I focused my attention, but I focused directly on your belief that Reagan’s great accomplishment was slowing down the growth of national government. You cited the Cato article, which was short on actual numbers. But there was a sentence that caught my eye: “He slashed marginal tax rates and revived the sagging economy.” How did he revive a sagging economy?

“the great growth in the economy (1983-1990: total employment growth of 19.9 million jobs, average annual real GDP growth of 4.1% (35.7% total growth for the period), industrial growth of 28.9%, real GDP per person average annual growth of 3.2% (26.7% total growth for the period).”

Is it possible that government spending had a lot to do with the growth you cite? Considering the growth in federal debt between 1981 and 1989 ($994,828,000,000 in 1981 to $2,867,800,000,000 in 1989, a 188% increase), it stands to reason that the increased government spending had a significant impact on the “great growth” of the economy. Total government spending during the same period rose from $678,241,000,000 to $1,143,646,000,000, a 69% increase.

Is it possible that increased government spending led to gains in the private sector as Reagan made significant increases in military and non-military spending?

Is this not a fair question given the statistics you cite?

“Judging from your uncaring, morally equivocating response previously, you probably are. But then intellectual honesty demands you to not deny that these people exist; it’s your problem to explain them away.”

Now who is distorting positions? You accuse me of being uncaring and you don’t think that is distorting my position?

You believe the FDA’s testing and verification procedures for drugs are “causing is inflicting suffering and death on untold Americans because it does not recognize our rights to our own bodies.” I don’t believe those requirements are a refutation of individual liberty or that they infringe on a person’s right to his/her own body. As I said before, if there was an unaffiliated third-party that could serve the same purpose of verifying the efficacy and safety of drugs I would support it. I don’t like the fact that the FDA has become politicized to a point where certain drugs are suppressed because of religious or supposed moral objections. I never said it was a perfect institution or that reforms wouldn’t be welcomed. But I’m also not inclined to trust the drug companies without independent verification. “Trust but verify” is correct, but without some unaffiliated third party, verification is difficult, if not impossible for an individual. I would like some assurance that the drugs I’m ingesting were properly tested and that any information regarding those drugs (side effects, contraindications) are provided. Those are my primary concerns.

You made a big deal about my supposed error. The was always tangential at best to the content – contrast “Progressive” viewpoints with constitutional principles – of the video. Now that you’re latest squalid attempt to sustain a factual challenge to anything I’ve written has been rebuffed, you just move on. After accusing me repetitively of being wrong, you fails to acknowledge that I was, in point of fact, right.

“You didn’t like where I focused my attention, but I focused directly on your belief that Reagan’s great accomplishment was slowing down the growth of national government.” – I didn’t like that you were seeing the tree and missing the forest, and prompting me to argue over a point not worth the effort. In any case, it’s not my “belief,” it’s a fact as substantiate in the Fed report above. Your apology is accepted.

“Is it possible that government spending had a lot to do with the growth you cite?…. Is it possible that increased government spending led to gains in the private sector as Reagan made significant increases in military and non-military spending? Is this not a fair question given the statistics you cite?” – Now you’re talking! This is a fair point and the kind of substantive challenge I would much rather attend to.

If government spending resulted in economic growth on the order of the Reagan-era economy than how do you explain the Clinton-era economy, in which government spending actually fell, the deficit shrunk, and growth increased, in some cases, even more dramatically than in the 1980s? Contrasting the recessions of the early 20s (massive government spending cuts and tax cuts for everyone) with the recession of the 30s (massive government spending increases and tax increases for everyone but especially businesses) makes the point even starker. The recession of the early 20s ended quickly while the 30s was transformed into the “Great Depression.”

“Now who is distorting positions? You accuse me of being uncaring and you don’t think that is distorting my position?” – You have no sympathy for any of the people I cited and refuse to consider how the FDA is responsible for their suffering. Of even how your stated belief in individual self-ownership is refuted by your belief in the FDA’s omnipotence in denying compassionate access to potentially beneficial treatments. If you wish to repudiate any of those state positions, I will gladly acknowledge you change in position. If not, you can expect me to give no quarter.

“You believe the FDA’s testing and verification procedures for drugs are ‘causing is inflicting suffering and death on untold Americans because it does not recognize our rights to our own bodies.'” – It’s my “belief” that Abigail died because the FDA denied her and her John Hopkins University oncologist permission to use a potentially beneficial drug – a drug that went on to win approval and is no part of standard care? It’s my “belief” that the FDA is denying patients access to Dr. Chow’s innovative technology, the only hope to save them from blindness? These are real people, Chris, who represent the consequences – good or bad, intended or unintended – of government intervention. Say you support reform. Say you support the bill that has languished 5 years in Congress to allow compassionate access. Say that you realize their are credible alternatives for testing and proving efficacy. Say that, on the principle of individual self-ownership, you acknowledgment that its ridiculous for government to try to protect people from their own bad decisions if they don’t hurt anyone else. But don’t tell me that the FDA has no impact on medical innovation, does not cause untold suffering in needless death by some of its actions, and it’s OK because they’re “not perfect.”

“I don’t believe those requirements are a refutation of individual liberty or that they infringe on a person’s right to his/her own body.” – Yes, yours is the faith-based argument here. To your mind, what is the justification for the FDA to deny someone access to a potentially beneficial treatment that they and their doctor(s) agree has benefits that outweigh its risks and side effects? If that is not a violation of individual liberty, what would you term it?

“I don’t like the fact that the FDA has become politicized to a point where certain drugs are suppressed because of religious or supposed moral objections.” – Regulatory capture happens with every government agency; the more intervention, the more likely it is to occur.

“…I’m also not inclined to trust the drug companies without independent verification.” – Where have I argued for this? I have specifically written several times now trying to explain how independent verification (i.e., it doesn’t involve trusting pharma or anyone else) works.

“I would like some assurance that the drugs I’m ingesting were properly tested and that any information regarding those drugs (side effects, contraindications) are provided. Those are my primary concerns.” – In that case, I share you’re primary concerns. And have outlined a number of ways in which a free-market in health care would address those concerns better than they are dealt with now.

Here is David Harsanyi on the meaning of the mid-terms. I don’t buy the “anger” part of his argument, but the rest is pretty good:

“Exit polls showed that this election was a rejection of the progressive agenda of “stimulus,” of Obamacare, of cap and trade. Exit polls showed that there was great anger with government—not government that didn’t work or government that didn’t do enough, but government that didn’t know its place. Some Senate seats that Republicans lost were to Democrats who sounded more conservative than their opponents.

Smart people will almost certainly pontificate about the end of the purist days when public servants were respected and government was creating jobs. All, of course, imagined. They will lament the irrational angst. They couldn’t help themselves but to continue to mock and deride their ideological opponents.”

The dramatic reversal “laments the [so-called] enlightened man, means gridlock exactly when we need government most—which, let’s face it, according to the left, is always.

But now there’s hope.

Typically, victorious candidates will talk about how they look forward to working with the other party for the benefit of America. Harrumph. This time around, newly elected senators told the body to “Deliberate on this!”—to pound sand until they respect ‘limited constitutional government.’ Sounds right, at least for a night.

….
Then again, I’m no Pollyanna. No election is as significant as the victors would like to believe. And, as W.C. Fields once said, ‘hell, I never vote for anybody; I always vote against.’
….
No matter what happens, for now, we can look forward to two glorious years of hyper-partisan, acrimonious gridlock—Washington’s most moral and productive state (http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/03/a-vote-against-government ).”

Although I rarely agree with your reactionary views (c’mon…how many times can you say “progressive” and spit as you type it?) there are points upon which we agree completely.

Like this one: “No matter what happens, for now, we can look forward to two glorious years of hyper-partisan, acrimonious gridlock”

At this point, I could care less whether government has over stepped or under stepped. I only want to hear that something is working. Clearly 17 million people (at least) who are not working are seriously going to affect each and every one of us. Not one word about this from any candidate other than repeating the word “jobs” over and over again.

I can almost hear Boehner now wielding his enormous ego instead of whining about Pelosi. We can kiss any social programs goodbye and say hello to tax cuts for oil companies, banks, brokers and anyone else that made a big GOP contribution.

The Democrats will do the same thing that Republicans did and filibuster almost everything. Wouldn’t it be nice if senators really had to filibuster instead of just saying they will? I’d love to see these doddering old men actually stand up for more than their allotted 15 minutes. Now they just mail in their “filibuster”.
“I’ll see you one secret hold and raise you two filibusters.”

Here is one thing I do take heart in. Over the course of editing this blog I have met many, many government employees. Both within this Town and State. Perhaps I am lucky, but I don’t think so. I think it is common. To a person they were fine, dedicated, talented, caring, honest and intelligent people who really cared about doing their job and doing it well. Unless they were politicians or appointed by them, of course.

“You have no sympathy for any of the people I cited and refuse to consider how the FDA is responsible for their suffering. Of even how your stated belief in individual self-ownership is refuted by your belief in the FDA’s omnipotence in denying compassionate access to potentially beneficial treatments.”

You’re unbelievable Portia. Once again you’re distorting my position while taking offense to me citing your words. Show me where I expressed belief in the FDA’s omnipotence. Cite the post where I even suggested the FDA was omnipotent.

For the last time: I don’t believe in unlimited government. I don’t believe in an omnipotent government or omnipotent government agencies. I have never advocated for unlimited government. Is that clear enough for you?

“reactionary views”?! Well, I suppose my nostalgia for President Clinton’s generally pro-free trade, anti-big government years is somewhat confusing. But, no, I don’t want to turn the clock back to 1996 or 1986 or 1776 for that matter.

The quotes around “Progressive” are meant to signify that those who subscribe to that title may, in their conceit, believe themselves to support progress, but their polices are objectively reactionary. While science and technology and life in general is moving toward individualized everything, most promisingly personalized drugs for the very worst diseases, “Progressives” are proposing one-size-fits all, industrial era, command-and-control government central planning as the only “solution” to health care, the economy, education, trade, and essentially everything else. What is so progressive about returning to the 1930s on the basis of economic and political theories that were, in some cases, debunked one to two hundred years ago.

As endlessly stated, I’m a proud and radical classical liberal, in the traditional Frederick Douglas and the original Radical Republicans, Milton Friedman, Mark Twain, and Zora Neale Hurston.

F.A. Hayek believed, as I do, that we need a “…truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty (including the trade unions), which is not too severely practical and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible.”

“there are points upon which we agree completely.” – LOL… I stopped reading at “reactionary,” and thus didn’t see this until writing what is above. I hope don’t rescind that agreement now!

We actually do agree on much of this, from the overuse of “jobs” without specifics and the lack of real debates in the Senate (and just about everywhere else). I also agree with your personal assessment of town and state employees as being, “[t]o a person… fine, dedicated, talented, caring, honest and intelligent people who really cared about doing their job and doing it well.” I have the utmost respect for government workers. This leads me to oppose the corrupt, monopolistic unions that they are required to support with mandatory dues, which protects the bad apples that unfairly puts their profession in disrepute, and which doesn’t allow the best workers to be rewarded appropriately for their individual talents and achievements. Put simply, we need more unions. But that is a longer discussion.

“We can kiss any social programs goodbye” – if only you were right…

“and say hello to tax cuts for oil companies, banks, brokers and anyone else that made a big GOP contribution.” – Financial services are dominated by Democrats (ask Government Sachs or President Obama). Moreover, are you saying that unions just collectively spent at least $200 million on Democrats for the fun of it? You don’t think they’re expecting anything in return? We need not be crass about this. Unions give to Democrats because they want influence, they want support to push their agenda. Business people who give to both sides want the same thing. President Obama is the biggest recipient of BP campaign cash in the last decade. All this means is we need to hold politicians to account. Malloy is wholly owned by the unions. If he lives down to the promises that he made them to win the primary, we will all pay a steep price. I, for one, will be watching…

You wrote elsewhere: “If they were serious, they would ban all funding of campaigns and force politicians to debate in public and be interviewed in the press. Like, like…our Founding Fathers!” – I agree except for the ban all funding part. We need to get rid of public financing of campaigns. No one makes the case better for this than the rapscallion Jimmy Miron. Real debates and vigorous free speech – now you’re talking!

“I stopped reading at “reactionary,””
I had a feeling that might get your attention. LOL!

“Progressives” are proposing one-size-fits all, industrial era, command-and-control government central planning as the only “solution” to health care,”
Are you sure you were able to get enough modifiers in that sentence?

““Progressive” are meant to signify that those who subscribe to that title may, in their conceit, believe themselves to support progress”
I doubt it. I believe the term was used as a substitute for “liberal” after it became a dirty word under Newt’s reign. “Liberal” is the worst term a Republican can call a Democrat.

“Financial services are dominated by Democrats (ask Government Sachs or President Obama).”
Now, now.. We all know that Financial Services will donate to any party that provides them with whatever they desire.

“Unions give to Democrats because they want influence, they want support to push their agenda.”
Now really. And what Republican positions support Labor? Are you somehow suggesting that the GOP has no financial support from any organized group? They simply build their campaigns on $5 donations from true patriots?

“the corrupt, monopolistic unions that they are required to support with mandatory dues, which protects the bad apples that unfairly puts their profession in disrepute, and which doesn’t allow the best workers to be rewarded appropriately for their individual talents and achievements.”
One of the great things about municipal unions is that they attempt (not always successfully) to keep politicians from implementing their usually awful decisions. We have strange cases in Stratford where unions vehemently objected to abuse of the system. http://www.stratfordpoliceunion.com/pdf/case1.pdf
There will be more news about another union stepping up very shortly. As for “Democratic” policies (OK, I know he’s not really a Democrat, but…) no one has been more anti-union than James R. Miron. Unless it is John Harkins.

28/33
I only had # 11 wrong until # 27 when I got 3 phone calls.
By then I was bored and distracted.
Fact. No excuse. I may have gotten those other 4 wrong anyway.
It might have been 1 more, except PORTIA gave correct answer,
I think on # 30?
Been a busy week. I will review later to see what I missed.

Chris Mathews was on Charlie Rose last night and pointed out
that in the 1950s, cross country super highways and rail were built,
schools improved from kindergaten to GI Colleges, and a bunch of
LIBERAL PROGRAMS dramatically improved life in the USA.

Then he pointed out the LIBERALS started attracting all of the fringe
elements, driving away the CORE constutiencies of LIBERAL DEMOCRACY.

He overlooked something ……

There were groups of people who lived through the Depression and
WW II who had each others’ backs against the world.

It was Tom Brokaw who labeled them the greatest generation.

—

Now we have thugs, liars, thiefs, murderers, and scum in every level of
government and politics, because power attracts the corrupt.

If people are willing to create wars, do they care about crime and drugs?

If people “look the other way” on crime because they got theirs, what
would convince them to be honest, when most people in law belong in
JAIL?

if a group of intelligent people realize they can get other people to work
for them to RIG the system, what incentive due they have for honest and
good government, when the public are uniformed sheep and too cowardly
to work to protect themselves?

“I had a feeling that might get your attention. LOL!” – Mission accomplished. I am not, properly speaking, even a conservative in that, as F.A. Hayek said” I “cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake. What the [classical] liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move.” All too often “…conservatives have tended to follow the socialist rather than the [classical] liberal direction.”

Hence we had Dick “I am now a Keynesian in economics” Nixon and George W. “I had to chuck my free market belief in order to save it” Bush – ostensibly conservatives – doing more than many a Democratic president to expand the welfare, warfare, and
centralized state.

This is understandably confusing. Dick Blumenthal conservative? A reactionary? Actually, yes. He wants to maintain the status quo on entitlements as well as roll back free trade and economic freedom by implementing protectionist policies along the lines of Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act. Dick refuses to examine new ideas or consider the kinds of classical liberal reforms that would produce peace and prosperity for America and our trading partners. He is an anti-liberal.

“Are you sure you were able to get enough modifiers in that sentence?” – I try to be all inclusive 😉

“I doubt it. I believe the term was used as a substitute for ‘liberal’ after it became a dirty word under Newt’s reign.” – The misnomer actually goes back many decades to about the end of the “Progressive” era. After the term fell into disrepute in America due to the “Progressives” many successes (e.g., the income tax, WWI, segregation of the federal government, the police state), many started calling themselves “liberals,” debasing a term that means the exact opposite of their anti-liberty policies. Since not too many people have interest in political etymology, both terms, in popular usage, are incorrectly thought to be synonyms.

“‘Liberal’ is the worst term a Republican can call a Democrat.” – I know, and it’s wrong. I’m doing my part to change that. And, more importantly, encouraging everyone to look past labels to first principles.

“Now, now.. We all know that Financial Services will donate to any party that provides them with whatever they desire.” – True, but Financial Services always skews to Dems. According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1989-2010 Government Sachs gave 60.71% ($10,347,179) of its campaign contributions to Democrats. The top five recipients were:

Of the top 20 members of Congress who received campaign contributions from the Financial Services industry in 2010, six were Republicans and 14 were Democrats, including four of the top five.

There are outliers, of course. In 2010, Paloma Partners gave 100% of its contributions to Democrats while Elliot Management gave almost all of its donations to Republicans.

“Now really. And what Republican positions support Labor?” – This classical liberal Republican supports labor (small “l”) because I support economic liberty: the right to work, the right to join, and the right to organize. Learn more at the Alliance for Worker Freedom: http://www.workerfreedom.com/

“Are you somehow suggesting that the GOP has no financial support from any organized group? They simply build their campaigns on $5 donations from true patriots?” – No, Republicans have their own favored interests. My main point was not that this is necessarily a bad thing. It is, rather, just a reality that needs to be better appreciated – especially when the champions of fin reg are being paid so well (Sen. Schumer took in more than $1.4 million in 2010 alone) by the industry they are regulating. Regulatory capture is a perennial concern.

“One of the great things about municipal unions is that they attempt (not always successfully) to keep politicians from implementing their usually awful decisions.” – When unions actually competed for members in CT, the more militant of the two teachers unions presciently warned that state government should not be trusted with the teachers’ pension fund. We didn’t listen to them and have a $6,500,000,000 deficit to show for it.

“(OK, I know he’s not really a Democrat, but…) no one has been more anti-union than James R. Miron.” – Not a Democrat? Sorry, Jez, I know how much you would like to disown him, but Jimmy – and Alan Grayson and Pete Stark and Nancy Pelosi – still have a “D” after their names. If he’s not, kindly explain why so many Democratic stalwarts (Jim Himes, George Jepsen, Susan Bysiewicz, Dick Blumenthal) felt compelled to campaign and fundraise with Jimmy?

I’m glad our bravest and finest stepped forward to support Mayor John Harkins. But let’s not forget that our finest, against their own wishes and as a result of collective bargaining, had to waste members’ dues on defending Justin Loschiavo. Let’s also not forget how the teachers unions endorsed Jimmy Miron this year – not exactly the best way to show solidarty with all the union members he persecuted over the years.

I think one cannot lay claim to being pro-worker and pro-union without simultaneously opposing the manifold abuses of today’s union monopolies.

“Portia – What is your avatar? – Thank you for noticing. My avatar (and alter ego) is Miss Columbia, who “emerged from the imagination of Chief Justice Samuel Sewall of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1697, he wrote a poem suggesting that America’s Colonies be called Columbina, a feminization of Christopher Columbus’ last name.

The name evolved more than 70 years later when, Phillis Wheatley, a former slave, wrote a far better ode invoking Miss Columbia in 1775 and sent it off to Gen. George Washington. In his reply, he praised her ‘elegant lines’ and ‘great poetical talents.’

Miss Columbia is ‘a literary name for the United States,’ says Ellen Berg, a historian who researched the symbol’s origins and popularity at the Library of Congress during a fellowship last fall with the Swann Foundation.

Miss Columbia was also the subject of our unofficial patriotic anthem, “Hail, Columbia”

I quote from a timely section of the lyrics:

“Let independence be our boast,
Ever mindful what it cost;
Ever grateful for the prize,
Let its altar reach the skies.

Chorus
Firm, united let us be,
Rallying round our liberty,
As a band of brothers joined,
Peace and safety we shall find.

Immortal patriots, rise once more,
Defend your rights, defend your shore!
Let no rude foe, with impious hand,
Let no rude foe, with impious hand,
Invade the shrine where sacred lies
Of toil and blood, the well-earned prize,
While off’ring peace, sincere and just,
In Heaven’s we place a manly trust,
That truth and justice will prevail,
And every scheme of bondage fail.”

Jim Miron was assistant Town Attorney in 1995, when the Defined
Benefit Pension Plan was created.

The entire careers of Dick and Jim Miron has been about creating
chinese fire walls and plausible deniability for damage they did and
machinations in which they participated.

They have to create anti-union ambiance, because of what I believe
were the criminal antics of the political / government matrix..

–

While PORTIA, JEZE, CHRIS can argue about LIBERAL, CONSERVATIVE,
PROGRESSIVE and all the other ideologic titles, I tend to look at
BluEmenthOl, LIEberman, dODD, deLAURO, Kelly and the dWARf,
Bad Medicine, bUTTERnuts, Country club cronies of the RTC + CT
State Police, JUSTICE/FIB, and the others in terms of

needing a political enema, where the only thing these creatures are
good for would be COMPOST, since they are so “full of ….. nitrates!”

Instead of PROGRESSIVE, how about LIARS?
Instead of CONSERVATIVES/LIBERALS, > CHEATS/THIEVES/HYPOCRITES?

I am not writing there are no legitimate PROGRESSIVES, CONSERVATIVES,
LIBERALS, DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, etc

However a wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf.
A sartorially resplendent (female or male) courtier is still a courtier.

–

Diplomats are just as essential to starting a war as soldiers
are for finishing it… You take diplomacy out of war, and the
thing would fall flat in a week.
Will Rogers

Diplomacy is the art of saying “Nice doggie” until you can find
a rock. Will Rogers

“If he’s not, kindly explain why so many Democratic stalwarts (Jim Himes, George Jepsen, Susan Bysiewicz, Dick Blumenthal) felt compelled to campaign and fundraise with Jimmy?”
The same way Republicans supported Vitter in Louisiana. The difference being that Vitter acknowledged his sins (after he was caught).

“But let’s not forget that our finest, against their own wishes and as a result of collective bargaining, had to waste members’ dues on defending Justin Loschiavo.”
That’s the problem with contracts and laws. You can’t look into the future. Especially in Stratford.

“Let’s also not forget how the teachers unions endorsed Jimmy Miron this year”
He claimed quite a few, didn’t he? The Sierra club? Gimme a break.

You have periodically bemoaned that this administration has not accomplished all that much. While I (and Chris) have countered this contention from time to time, now there is a wonderful website that succinctly highlights President Obama’s great and glorious achievements: http://www.whatthehellhasobamadonesofar.com/

Self-anointed elites have been relentless in prodding government planners to apply their enlightened solutions for the purported benefit of the ignorant masses. As a result, the federal government has become a Super Nanny monitoring and guiding the intimate activities of the nation’s 300 million inhabitants. However, the government is not altruistic and does not have the solutions for how people should live their lives.

The amalgamation of programs and regulations that constitute the federal government is basically a reflection of the myriad special interests that have won a seat at Uncle Sam’s table. Government consists of fallible men and women who are naturally susceptible to pursuing policies that have less to do with the “general welfare” and more to do with rewarding the privileged birds incessantly chirping in their ears.

One result is that government programs often work at cross purposes. A perfect illustration is the confused U.S. Department of Agriculture, which spends taxpayer money subsidizing fatty foods while at the same time setting nutritional guidelines with the purported aim of getting Americans to eat healthier (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/government-cheese/ ).”

Progressives claim to have a monopoly on progress – designed by intellectuals who ‘know better’ and brought about by a big, beneficent government. But Americans voted in last week’s elections that this brand of progress actually impoverishes, and that a free market is much smarter.”

Some choice quotes:

“President Obama and other progressives attribute the Democrats’ electoral shellacking last week to their failure to communicate with ordinary Americans. The implication is that most Americans are too slow to appreciate the noble and courageous government programs that progressives enacted for the public good. Another implication is that progressives are unusually smart and visionary.

The very label ‘progressive’ suggests a forward-looking intelligence – a desire to progress past present superstitions and misinformation into a future enlightened by ideas rather than benighted by ignorance.

….

Trouble is, progressives’ understanding of the source of progress is regressive. It reflects an outmoded belief that society advances only if it is consciously designed by well-meaning and smart intellectuals and steered by a beneficent and powerful government.

….

Since [Adam] Smith, generations of economists have refined our understanding that a decentralized, free-market economy is far smarter than is even the best set of ideas concocted by the world’s most brilliant intellectuals….

These ideas, constantly bubbling up from millions of different minds, compete with each other. Each of these ideas is tested in the real world, but without being forced on anyone. Also, the feedback on these ideas’ usefulness comes not from seminar participants, but from millions of actual producers and consumers putting their own money on the line.

Ideas that actually work survive. Ideas that don’t, don’t.

….

Progressives’ ideas… are about replacing the market’s unimaginably large multitude of diverse and competing ideas – each one individually chosen, practiced, assessed, and modified in light of what Austrian economist and free-market philosopher F.A. Hayek called ‘the particular circumstances of time and place’ – with a relatively paltry set of Big Ideas. These Big Ideas are politically selected and centrally imposed. And they are enforced not by the natural give and take of the everyday interactions of millions of people but, rather, by political authority.

What’s worse, this political authority rests with those whose overriding ‘idea’ is among the most simple-minded and antediluvian notions in history – namely, that those with the power of the sword are anointed to lord it over the rest of us.

….

Far from paving a path to prosperity and progress, progressives’ ideas are a recipe for impoverishment and regression.

The good news is that voters in America seem to get that. As pollster Scott Rasmussen noted last week, ‘voters don’t want to be governed from the left, the right, or even the center. They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.'”

Donald J. Boudreaux, a professor of economics at George Mason University, is the author of ‘Globalization.’

“No, that’s the inherent unfairness of collective bargaining that is not freely agreed upon by the workers themselves.”

Err..have you ever been in a union or voted on a contract? Just curious. The ones I’ve been involved with tended to have..umm…lively…discussions of the details.

“They want someone in Washington who understands that the American people want to govern themselves.”
There is scant evidence of that. From poor turnouts to the lack of knowledge about who is running and why the American people seem to have little interest in how their government runs at all. When confronted with the witnessing of how sausage is made or finishing breakfast quickly and going to work, most people will not want to know what goes into that sausage. It’s disgusting.

I have heard similar comments when referring to this very blog. There are citizens who tell me (while in my secret identity) that this blog can be very depressing especially if you are a Town employee. There is no arguing with that. The most positive news we’ve heard in a year is that Timex donated a new sundial.

The majority of American voters projected their hopes on Obama but what we ended up with is just another lawyer.

All I can see in Government / Biggest Business are the PARTIES of
LIARS or THIEVES
VAMPIRES or GHOULS

The SENATE / CONGRESS appoints people to the Military Academies.
The SEANTE / CONGRESS gave LAND GRANTS for the TRANSCONTINENTAL
RAILROADS, which used West Point Engineers to plan the Railroad beds.
Thus came some Robber Barons.
The RAILROADS hired the PINKERTONS to break up UNIONS & STRIKES as
did other MAJOR Robber Barons. The PINKERTONS became the FBI.
Robber Barons could use gangs to control unions and neighborhoods, in
ways formal police were not supposed to do and many police and pinkertons
and gangs were drawn from the same crews and families of toughs!

The executive and congress are drawn from state political pools of mostly
lawyers willing to do party bidding, assisted by national assets. Judges are
mostly appointed and Ratified (some elected), mostly from prosecutors
who have earned favors to the politically connected and who were hired
and appointed either directly or indirectly by political people or surrogates.
The same is true for ranking local police, state police, and federal police
and department heads of all levels of governments.

In WW II the national government gave virtual monopoly to companies for
“economy to scale massive” production, allowing them control within their
spheres of specialization.
These included Oil, Vehicles, Food, Military Weapons, Medicine, Clothing,
Media, Commerce, Transportation, Communications, Education and everything related to supporting War, Military, and General population. These were
likely represented in the Dow Jones 500. Dow happens to be the abbreviation
of the DEPARTMENT OF WAR.
Certain families had controlling interest in different companies, industries,
– Thus became what Eisenhower called: “The Military, Industrial, (political)
Complex,” and the “Scientific Technological Elite.”

If your understand the political – economic matrix, you can see how it was
possible for the degeneration of the American Industry and society occurred.

All these labels about theory are fine.

However the empirics are:
Power corrupts.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The corrupt are attracted to Power.
The absolutely corrupt, have no restraints.

“Progressives claim to have a monopoly on progress – designed by intellectuals who ‘know better’ and brought about by a big, beneficent government. But Americans voted in last week’s elections that this brand of progress actually impoverishes, and that a free market is much smarter.”

These types of sweeping generalizations continue to dominate the discourse and serve no useful purpose. While there were pockets of higher turnout in some districts, voter turnout in 2010 was lower then 2008 (which is normally the case in mid-term elections) so the suggestion that those who voted represent a complete repudiation of a progressive agenda, or democratic party principles (which in some cases are at odds with a true progressive agenda) is absurd.

“About 41.5 percent of the voting age population turned out last week, according to professor Michael McDonald of George Mason University, compared to 61.6 percent in 2008 – roughly a 30 percent drop between the presidential and midterm elections. The people who turned out at lower rates – younger voters, African Americans and Latinos are higher propensity Democratic supporters. They will show up in higher numbers in two years. And unless something changes, they will not support GOP candidates.”

I’m willing to bet that most people going to the polls had no free-market platform or healthcare law repeal platform on which they were voting. They were voting primarily on the state of the economy (but not necessarily a tip of the cap to a “smarter free market”) and to some extent hatred, but I find suspect the idea that voters, as a whole, were voting to send that particular message.

Voters didn’t even have healthcare reform at the top of the list in exit polling.

“In contrast to exit polls taken after the election, Kaiser asked voters to explain why they voted the way they did and what factors influenced their decision. While voters cited a variety of factors, ranging from the economy and jobs to voting against a candidate from a specific party, health care ranked fourth on list, with 17 percent citing health care or reform as one of the top factors in how they cast their vote.”

“The poll also found that there’s significant disagreement over how to change the new law, with about 40 percent of the public wanting to expand or leave the law as it is and about half wanting to repeal all or some of the legislation.”

I do have a sincere question that I’m hoping you’ll address with respect to how the free market should handle a particular situation. I’ll try to summarize briefly:

Here in PA we have the Marcellus Shale and companies have been rushing to the area in order to extract natural gas from the area. A situation occurred the other day where Halliburton refused to provide information on the chemicals the company uses in its hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” process. Halliburton claims it is a proprietary information. Without the public knowing what chemicals are being used and the potential for those chemicals to enter the water system, is there a market-based scenario where individuals have a right to know what chemicals are being used, and how should that be addressed if not through government involvement? Is there a market solution that would exclude government involvement but provide residents of the area adequate information on the potential effects of those chemicals?

I’m honestly curious to know how a free-market scenario would address this particular situation. What is the public’s right to know? Do they have a right to know what chemicals are being used? Who should have the responsibility for making that information available to the public? Does Halliburton have any responsibility to disclose that information seeing as it is a proprietary process?

I’m not trying to put you on the spot. I’m just curious to hear your views on how the free market would handle this situation.

“On no PORTIA you are gonna get in trouble with Jeze, posting your
stuff on the wrong string.”

Not to worry Portia, George is by far and away the worst offender…still.

–

GOODY GOODY … IT IS GREAT TO BE RECOGNIZED as the BEST

–

PORTIA – I am not ganging up on You or Chris but I stopped into the Harbor
and Waterfront Commission meeting last night.
– They have some very, very pretty pictures with captions / writing on them
for Long Beach West, Bird Festival and AVCO.

I was able to ask them to get a tour of AVCO and see the LEGENDS of what
and where POISONS are BURIED UNDER AVCO and possibly leeching into the
Housatonic River, just a little upstream of the Beach.

Yesterday YAHOO STORY about the ERIN BROCOVICH Town which has
CHROMIUM in an “EXPANDING WATER PLUME.”

– STRATFORD

RAYMARK has 500 acre WATER PLUME.

AVCO has yet to have LEECHING or WATER PLUME REVEALED. Among far
worse chemicals in AVCO (twice size of RAYMARK) is CHROMIUM.

RAYMARK was PRIVATE SECTOR which went CHAPT 11 and EPA / DEP have
thoroughly screwed up and delayed clean up.

AVCO is an ARMY ENGINE PLANT and under a different oversight than the
DEP / this EPA crew.

–

Chris’s question relates to PRIVATE SECTOR (Halliburton).

My PUBLIC SAFETY POINT (Happy Jeze) relates to PUBLIC SECTOR (cheney’s
former minions)

“The ones I’ve been involved with tended to have..umm…lively…discussions of the details.” – You’re still not getting my point, which is that if put to a vote the members would never have voted to spend their hard-earned dues on someone as unworthy as Justin Loschiavo. Moreover, if they had been allowed to discriminate (not always a bad thing, especially when dealing with Mironistas), Losciavo would never have been allowed to join the union in the first place. But, by virtue of being hired, he was automatically a member of the union and his rightly disgusted fellow members had no choice but to offer a defense for him under collective bargaining. The same is true in the teacher’s unions. The vast majority of teacher’s are the salt of the earth. And yet the union stupidly protects mediocrities and even sex offenders from getting fired. Sorry, Jez, but that just is not fair to the good teachers and good police officers who have their reputations tarnished by the bad apples, nor tax payers who are required to foot the bill.

“There is scant evidence of that.” – I’m not much for polling except in so far as there is value to them if monitoring trends over time. And, on that note, Americans are tending toward more, not less, individual liberty. Politicians, Democrats and Republicans, who run against this pro-choice mentality are increasingly going to be getting their walking papers.

“The most positive news we’ve heard in a year is that Timex donated a new sundial.” – While great, I think another landslide against Miron and Mironistas is a serious contender for 1st place.

“The majority of American voters projected their hopes on Obama but what we ended up with is just another lawyer.” – Agreed.

“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” – Henry Mencken

“The Democrats and Republics fight amongs themselves, and both fight
the American public – Sidney Zion

“The majority of American voters projected their hopes on Obama but what we ended up with is just another lawyer.” – Agreed. – Agreed – so far

–

The Mirons / Burturla / Loschiavos / Imbro / Retiress and the various police
appear to fight amongst each other, however amny of the same players all
have a vested interest in creating diversions and plausible deniability related
to PENSION ABUSE. It has become transparent to many public insiders and to
many of the PUBLIC who increasing have seen through A C T S,

Are there real animousities?
Certainly!

– – –

“There is scant evidence of that.” – I’m not much for polling except
in so far as there is value to them if monitoring trends over time.
And, on that note, Americans are tending toward more, not less,
individual liberty. Politicians, Democrats and Republicans, who run
against this pro-choice mentality are increasingly going to be getting
their walking papers.

PORTIA – If you own the RACE TRACK…
Do you care which JACK ASs or HORSE or CAR ….WINS?

The TEA PARTY lost all credibility with Sarah Palin as a speaker.
Both political parties are experienced at creating shells / fronts / spin.

Who is against
his / her freedom to choose?
curtailing his / her liberties

These obvious mantra get co-opted and spun to turn pro-choice
in abortion to pro-death of the fetus, while not always best choice
for mom

“These types of sweeping generalizations continue to dominate the discourse and serve no useful purpose.” – OK, can you refute the point instead of sweeping it asside? Are “Progressive” policies not as Prof. Boudreaux has ably described them?

As for the rest… may I suggest Lawrence O’Donnell’s take down of Glenn Greenwald, who made similar points to yours about the election not meaning anything:

You’re comparing 2010 to 2008 to make a point about low turnout? Of course a midterm has lower turnout than a presidential election. Comparing apples to apples, however, the turnout this year is higher than 2006, when Democrats won control of Congress. You can choose to ignore the results as a repudiation of this administration’s failed policies, but that doesn’t change the impact of what has happened. And I’m sure you’ll wish to change your mind about elections not having have consequences when some members of the Party of No start to impede President Obama’s “progress” on the road to serfdom.

In the abstract you do have a point that state of the economy, rightly or wrongly, plays a large role in midterm elections. One variable, however, cannot explain everything. Why does a Russ Feingold loose and a Barbar Boxer win? If our stagnating (and possibly inflating) economy was the ultimate determining factor, neither should have won reelection. So I find Lawrence O’Donnell’s explanation more persuasive, i.e., Democrats overstated their mandate to govern from the left and have paid the price at the ballot box.

While I don’t ascribe much value to polling (as stated above) and the moral and legal arguments for repel of ObamaCare are far more compelling, the data does not support your claim: exit polling shows a vast majority of actual voters want ObamaCare repelled.

Finally, I think you give voters too little credit in being able to understanding that this and the prior administration’s anti-free market, government interventionist policies have brought us to this economic precipice.

Only a “Progressive” could believe themselves able to transcend common sense:
Spend No More Than You Make; Borrow Only What You Can Afford To Pay Back; If It’s Not Broken, Don’t Fix It. But If It’s Not Working, Get Rid Of It; The More Government Tries To Do, The Less It Does Well; All The Government We Need, But Only The Government We Need (see: http://www.commonsensecommitment.com/ ).

First, I’m not sure why the link above is incorrect. Here is the clip I tried to embed above (that’s what I get for trusting the Huf Post):

Second, I am happy to oblige in providing my free market take on your sincere question. For the purposes of my response, I will only rely upon your description. What follows are my preliminary thoughts.

You’re describing is a situation of competing interests. On the one hand, the company has an interest in protecting its proprietary process. On the other, residents have an interest in protecting themselves from potentially harmful exposure as well as their properties from contamination.

“is there a market-based scenario where individuals have a right to know what chemicals are being used, and how should that be addressed if not through government involvement?” – There are several ways of addressing this: purely market, purely government, or some admixture. Since you seem to be asking for purely market, I will confine myself to that category. Our existing system, of course, is an admixture, with too much of a role for government.

In any case, it is not necessary for residents to know exactly what chemicals are being used in order to protect their interests. Even if they could get such disclosure, who is to say the company has provided a complete list? (you did say this is Haliburton, right?) Even if the company is honest, who is to say that through the “fracking” process a number of individually harmless chemicals may not result in runoff that is harmful? Clearly, residents without advanced degrees in chemistry would be ill-served by the so-called “right to know” this info at the expense of the private property rights of the company.

A better option would be for the residents and company to come to mutually agreeable terms that would a.) protect residents and their property and b.) protect the company’s proprietary process. Both objectives could be achieved by agreeing to monitoring technology to guard against ground water contamination as well as an outside auditor, who could confirm what chemicals are being used, the content of runoff, soil quality, and any other metric desired by residents.

The company would have no fear of disclosing its information to the auditor because the auditor would be bound by contract to confidentiality. The auditor would answer to residents on whether or not contamination had occurred and, if so, what chemicals are the culprits. This can be done without disclosing the process itself. Residents could rest assured that their interest were being well-served by the results of the independent expert scrutiny.

Any agreement worthy of the name would also include recourse if the auditor found the company to be in non-compliance. For example, if ground water contamination was found, the company would be liable for remediation costs as well as compensating residents. Applying a monetary cost to their pollution would serve as a strong incentive for the company not to allow contamination to occur in the first place.

Where in my post did I say ANYTHING about the election not meaning anything or not having consequences? I was pointing out that the idea that 40% of population voting equates to all Americans rejecting “a progressive agenda, or democratic party principles (which in some cases are at odds with a true progressive agenda)” is absurd and factually inaccurate.

Of course elections mean something and have consequences, but attempting to discredit an entire movement or party based on the voting patterns of 42% of the voting age population in a mid-term election is jumping the shark. It was wrong of Democrats to believe they had a mandate in 2006 and it is wrong of Republicans to believe the same in 2010. This was more an anti-incumbent election then it was anything else.

We could argue that the primary issue in the 2006 elections was the war in Iraq, while 2010 was largely based on economic concerns. In that case, comparing the two elections is misleading because the issues dominating the agenda were very different.

If this election was such a “repudiation” of the administration’s policies, why did the Republicans/Tea Party not take back the Senate? The Republican majority in the House is not nearly as large as what the Democrats maintained in the 1980s, early 1990s or from 2008-2010. Our country continues along the path we have for some time, a relatively evenly divided House of Representatives since the 1940s and a more recent development of a closely divided Senate. Neither side can claim a mandate.

“Why does a Russ Feingold lose and a Barbar Boxer win?”

Seriously? You’re comparing an election in Wisconsin to an election in California? Let’s try this from Greenwald himself:

” . . .there was Lawrence O’Donnell trying to blame “the Left” and “liberalism” for the Democrats’ political woes. Alan Grayson’s loss was proof that outspoken liberalism fails. Blanche Lincoln’s loss was the fault of the Left for mounting a serious primary challenge against her. Russ Feingold’s defeat proved that voters reject liberalism in favor of conservatism, etc. etc.”

“There are so many obvious reasons why this “analysis” is false: Grayson represents a highly conservative district that hadn’t been Democratic for decades before he won in 2008 and he made serious mistakes during the campaign; Lincoln was behind the GOP challenger by more than 20 points back in January, before Bill Halter even announced his candidacy; Feingold was far from a conventional liberal, having repeatedly opposed his own party on multiple issues, and he ran in a state saddled with a Democratic governor who was unpopular in the extreme. Beyond that, numerous liberals who were alleged to be in serious electoral trouble kept their seats: Barney Frank, John Dingell, Rush Holt, Raul Grijalva, and many others.”

Not even half said repeal it. And the statistics are evenly split. 48% repeal, 47% leave it as it is or expand it. Hardly a vast majority, unless you’re referring to Republicans only.

And I give voters a lot of credit. But I think you’re trying to inflate the meaning of an individual’s vote without clear evidence of intent. If you’re so certain that voters were expressing a clear vision of free markets and deregulation, how do you explain 2006? Did voters simply lose their faculty to make rational decisions in 2006?

Finally, is that last paragraph directed at me specifically? Why do you insist on misrepresenting my positions? I don’t believe the government should spend more than it makes, in fact I think it should spend less. Where the debate begins is what those expenditures should be. I have a feeling we’ll never come to agreement on the last principle either, as determining what government we need is constantly evolving (and no, I do NOT mean expanding).

“You’re still not getting my point, which is that if put to a vote the members would never have voted to spend their hard-earned dues on someone as unworthy as Justin Loschiavo.”
Perhaps not. However, nice elidation there, ole buddy. I am going to take it you were never in a union or part of the bargaining team?

The trouble with collective agreements (as the Loschiavos know so well) is that they are collective.

“Losciavo would never have been allowed to join the union in the first place. But, by virtue of being hired, he was automatically a member of the union and his rightly disgusted fellow members had no choice but to offer a defense for him under collective bargaining.”
Portia, his hiring had nothing to do with the union. That was all on Miron and Loschiavo. You know that. Once in, no matter how many times he lied or Miron accepted, then his daddy took FULL advantage of Local 407’s negotiated contracts.

“Politicians, Democrats and Republicans, who run against this pro-choice mentality are increasingly going to be getting their walking papers. ”
TBD, my friend.

“Only a “Progressive” could believe themselves able to transcend common sense:”
Sticks and stones. Portia?

“Losciavo would never have been allowed to join the union in the first place. But, by virtue of being hired, he was automatically a member of the union and his rightly disgusted fellow members had no choice but to offer a defense for him under collective bargaining.”
Portia, his hiring had nothing to do with the union. That was all on Miron and Loschiavo. You know that. Once in, no matter how many times he lied or Miron accepted, then his daddy took FULL advantage of Local 407′s negotiated contracts.

“I am going to take it you were never in a union or part of the bargaining team?” – My apologies for responding too quickly to your last post. While I come from a union family, I have never belonged to a union.

“The trouble with collective agreements (as the Loschiavos know so well) is that they are collective.” – Exactly!

“his hiring had nothing to do with the union. That was all on Miron and Loschiavo. You know that. Once in, no matter how many times he lied or Miron accepted, then his daddy took FULL advantage of Local 407′s negotiated contracts.” – I know. I am protesting that the union had no say over who it lets into its membership. As I think George is saying above – and, if not, I’ll say it myself – unions should be free to include or exclude whomever they want. Similarly, workers should be free to choose whether or not to belong to a union, and if “yes,” then which union they wish to be a part of.

“Sticks and stones.” – I’m sorry, I just don’t abide condescension, especially when it comes from “Progressives” who are (charitably) of average intelligence and yet believe themselves capable of micromanaging our lives.

“Similarly, workers should be free to choose whether or not to belong to a union, and if “yes,” then which union they wish to be a part of. ”

Another supporter of card check! LOL!

“I am protesting that the union had no say over who it lets into its membership.”
It would be interesting to hear how you think that would work and how a board of directors would take advantage of it. Corporations do not have a very shiny reputation for fairness or kindness to workers. I seem to recall that a key strategy of a union is to have more members, not less.

I actually agree (to a point). It just went out of control when the sociopathic Miron got himself a bit of actual power. We have still not finished paying for that blunder. There is still much to be revealed about that.

What am I to make of your latest post when you asked so sweetly “I do have a sincere question that I’m hoping you’ll address with respect to how the free market should handle a particular situation….. I’m just curious to hear your views on how the free market would handle this situation” but then say nothing of my response and post on another topic? For the moment, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps this is just an oversight and you will get back to me about the PA question later.

As to your latest post:

You claim that it is “absurd and factually inaccurate” to interpret the election as a rejection of the “Progressive” agenda. But it is that agenda, dutifully implemented by Presidents Bush and Obama as well as a Democratic Congress since 2006, that has objectively failed. We can debate particular policies and implementation. but by most metrics the country is worse-off now than before President Bush was inaugurated or when Pelosi became Speaker.

What is actually absurd is that you fail to read Prof. Boudreaux’s quote in context. To wit:

“Exit polls showed that this election was a rejection of the progressive agenda of ‘stimulus,’ of Obamacare, of cap and trade. Exit polls showed that there was great anger with government—not government that didn’t work or government that didn’t do enough, but government that didn’t know its place. Some Senate seats that Republicans lost were to Democrats who sounded more conservative than their opponents.”

Are you denying that voters, in their own words, reject the “progressive agenda of ‘stimulus,’ of Obamacare, of cap and trade”? Furthermore, do you disagree that the success of a senator-elect Manchin (D-WV) was due to his running against the progressive agenda”?

The problem with all this, of course and as usual, is that you will respond on the margins but refuse to engage on the fundamentals. The stimuli and Obamacare were wrong: morally, constitutionally, economically. While a majority of people are opposed to those measures, I really don’t care if the polling results were entirely reversed. If every man but one was in favor of Obamacare, it would not change the efficacy or constitutionality of the measure. Argumentum ad populum (unfortunately for “Progressives” and their apologists, the populum is not as stupid or compliant as they insist we are). In other words, we agree “discredit[ing] an entire movement or party based on the voting patterns” is not valid. The “Progressive” policies of the last ten years are self-discrediting.

“It was wrong of Democrats to believe they had a mandate in 2006 and it is wrong of Republicans to believe the same in 2010.” – No, it wasn’t. Winning an election is a mandate. What you do with that mandate is another story. Democrats were right to pursue the policies they were elected to implement. The problem is they didn’t even try. Democrats had promised to “drain the swamp,” ensure fiscal responsibility, and reign in foreign interventions. Those were and remain popular positions, especially coming after Republicans failed to live up to their promises. Instead, though, Democrats proceeded to implement a “Progressive” agenda that, as Lawrence O’Donnell rightly says, only a small percentage of the country would ever support. When you overstep your mandate, don’t be surprised by an electoral backlash.

“This was more an anti-incumbent election then it was anything else.” – Really? Then why did 87% of incumbents in the House and (depending on Alaska) a projected 84% in the Senate win relection? Those numbers are less than the historical averages, but still remarkably high.

“comparing the two elections is misleading because the issues dominating the agenda were very different.” – The primary motivations always have to be considered, but mid-terms are mid-terms, and thus comparable.

“If this election was such a ‘repudiation’ of the administration’s policies, why did the Republicans/Tea Party not take back the Senate?” – If it wasn’t a repudiation than why didn’t Democrats not only retain but expand their margins in the House and Senate instead of loosing the House and having their power curtailed in the Senate? Also, the GOP and Tea Party are separate entities (just ask any elected Tea Partier or establishment Republican).

“The Republican majority in the House is not nearly as large as what the Democrats maintained in the 1980s, early 1990s or from 2008-2010.” – If I were to answer this as you, I would say that the 97th Congress actually had one fewer Democrat (244) than Republicans will have in the 112th Congress (245).

“Our country continues along the path we have for some time, a relatively evenly divided House of Representatives since the 1940s and a more recent development of a closely divided Senate. Neither side can claim a mandate.” – What? The House was under Democratic control for decades. If that wasn’t a mandate, what is?

“’Why does a Russ Feingold lose and a Barbar Boxer win?’ Seriously?” – Missed the point, which I wish I could say is surprising because it was your own. If the election was solely based on the economy and anti-incumbency – as you contend – then both incumbents should have lost. The fact that Boxer won and Feingold lost illustrates that other factors matter, too.

“Let’s try this from Greenwald himself” – You quote this as if I didn’t paste the interview clip above. But I did. And I also said that O’Donnell was right, Greenwald was wrong. I know you agree with Greenwald – i.e,. “if only” Blue Dogs were more leftish everything would have worked out – but his analysis completely rejects what the voters actually said. Blue Dogs lost because they weren’t conservative enough. Pelosi, Braney Frank, Dingley, et al. are in incredibly safe districts. Saying, as Greenwald in effect does, ‘look we won Detriot, Americans don’t really dislike us!’ is just not serious. That Frank even looked the slightest bit vulnerable (or previously when Brown and Christie won in upsets) tells the true story.

“And where are your statistics to support your claim that a ‘vast majority of actual voters want ObamaCare repealed’?” – This is preciously why I only value polls for their ability to track trends over time. And preciously why I said above that how many people think a really pernicious law should be repelled is irrelevant to the law’s perniciousness. See Prop 19, for example. But, again, since you asked, this is the only exit poll I was familiar with:

“Fifty-nine percent (59%) of those who voted in today’s elections nationwide favor repeal of the national health care bill passed by congressional Democrats in March, including 48% who Strongly Favor it.

Rasmussen Reports telephone surveying nationwide after the polls closed found that 40% are opposed to repeal, with 32% who Strongly Oppose it.

“Not even half said repeal it. And the statistics are evenly split. 48% repeal, 47% leave it as it is or expand it.” – In the exit poll you cite, yes. The exit poll I saw says otherwise. But neither is worth anything in the abstract. What is important is the trend, which has reversed years of polling that said Americans generally favor more government intervention in health care. Now that’s change we can believe in.

“If you’re so certain that voters were expressing a clear vision of free markets and deregulation, how do you explain 2006? Did voters simply lose their faculty to make rational decisions in 2006?” – What I’m saying is that voters understand the economy is faltering and (rightly) blame bad (read: “Progressive”) policies for getting us to this point. Since you love polling so much, Arthur Brooks and Representative Paul Ryan wrote in WSJ before the election:

“…the Ayers-McHenry polling firm in 2009, which asked a large group of Americans, “Overall, would you prefer larger government with more services and higher taxes, or smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes?” To this question, 21% favored the former, while 69% preferred the latter.

Unfortunately, many political leaders from both parties in recent years have purposively [sic] obscured the fundamental choice we must make by focusing on individual spending issues and programs while ignoring the big picture of America’s free enterprise culture. In this way, redistribution and statism always win out over limited government and private markets.

Why not lift the safety net a few rungs higher up the income ladder? Go ahead, slap a little tariff on some Chinese goods in the name of protecting a favored industry. More generous pensions for teachers? Hey, it’s only a few million tax dollars—and think of the kids, after all.

Individually, these things might sound fine. Multiply them and add them all up, though, and you have a system that most Americans manifestly oppose—one that creates a crushing burden of debt and teaches our children and grandchildren that government is the solution to all our problems. Seventy percent of us want stronger free enterprise, but the other 30% keep moving us closer toward an unacceptably statist America—one acceptable government program at a time (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704358904575478141708959932.html ).”

“I don’t believe the government should spend more than it makes, in fact I think it should spend less. Where the debate begins is what those expenditures should be. I have a feeling we’ll never come to agreement on the last principle either, as determining what government we need is constantly evolving (and no, I do NOT mean expanding).” – I have been fair to your positions. You, of course, consider pointing out logical inconsistencies to be unfair, but that is not my problem. In any case, you are correct that the debate is on what expenditures should be made, what rights should be sacrificed at the alter of government power. Where we disagree is that sound, constitutional principles should answer such questions. In a country under the rule of law, everything cannot be ad hoc. The individual mandate in ObamaCare, for example, is flagrantly unconstitutional. Everyone who voted for that legislation violated their oath to uphold the Constitution. It gives me great pleasure that many of those who did so are no longer in power or have at least lost some of their power.

I suggest you check out Cato’s website dedicated to reforming the national government (http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/ ) and particularly its section on the “Principles of Reform.”

“Another supporter of card check! LOL!” – Card check is to individual rights what government “stimuli” is to job creation.

“It would be interesting to hear how you think that would work and how a board of directors would take advantage of it.” – I don’t see a disadvantage to workers freely choosing who they associate with. Justin and the rubber room teachers in New York are disturbing examples of what happens when worker freedom is denied.

“I seem to recall that a key strategy of a union is to have more members, not less.” – Yes, but the fundamental purpose of a union is to represent the workers’ interests. Just like in everything else, when unions have to compete for membership, the membership benefits because the various unions are competing to best serve their interests. When unions can take the membership for granted, workers often loose out, whether because of corrupt leadership or (more often) the evils of collective bargaining.

“Justin and the rubber room teachers in New York are disturbing examples of what happens when worker freedom is denied.”
It is certainly a stretch to use the case of Justin Loschiavo/Jim Miron as an example of what is wrong with collective bargaining. There will always be those who cannot live by the rules or even basic ethics in any organization. The Loschiavo incident is more an example of the kind of people Loschiavo and Miron are than anything else. How often do you get so many lies at once from a single mayor? In this case it is a tad more serious because someone could have become seriously injured or killed.

As for the implied evils of collective bargaining, I am sure that the management/ownership side is extremely well organized and funded as well. It is sad to say that many times the words “good faith” have very little connection to bargaining efforts. Both sides tend to lay it on the table and measure who’s is longer.

“All corporations? Some, certainly. Many, possibly. But all? Of course not.” I doubt it is because of a concern for their workers. Do you think it could possibly be management’s fear of union organizing?

“Overall, would you prefer larger government with more services and higher taxes, or smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes?” To this question, 21% favored the former, while 69% preferred the latter.
In reality, neither will happen. In a real world the only way to reduce a 12 year old enormous deficit is to raise taxes and lower services. There is another way, but no one knows how to accomplish it: Lower the unemployment rate to <4%. 25 million more people will be paying taxes and happy to do so.

All politics are local. If you have been laid off, if you haven't received a raise in 5 years, if your copays keep going up as well as your property tax, if half the people where you work are gone and your boss keeps telling you that there are 10 people that would love your job, if you see your kid's tuition going up by double digits every year, if you see the cost of just filling your gas/oil tank becoming a major ordeal you are NOT a happy voter.

Which brings me back to my point. Neither Republicans nor Democrats nor Tea Partiers, nor Progressives nor "Classical Liberals" have presented any sort of rational plan to resolve or even alleviate this pain.

– I know. I am protesting that the union had no say over who it lets into its membership. As I think George is saying above – and, if not, I’ll say it myself – unions should be free to include or exclude whomever they want.

GEORGE WOULD NEVER SUPPORT EXCLUSIONARY POLICIES IN SOCIAL or
WORK SETTINGS THAT ARE PEACEFUL AND LEGAL.

“What am I to make of your latest post when you asked so sweetly “I do have a sincere question that I’m hoping you’ll address with respect to how the free market should handle a particular situation….. I’m just curious to hear your views on how the free market would handle this situation” but then say nothing of my response and post on another topic? For the moment, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps this is just an oversight and you will get back to me about the PA question later.”

Portia, calm down. Switch to decaf. A full-time job and six week old infant tend to take up a lot of time. Just because I didn’t respond right away doesn’t mean I wasn’t considering your response. I’ll have to get back to it later, but suffice it to say your response raises many interesting (and in some cases troubling) ideas.

Just a couple points to address (I’ll try to get back to the rest later):

“In any case, it is not necessary for residents to know exactly what chemicals are being used in order to protect their interests. Clearly, residents without advanced degrees in chemistry would be ill-served by the so-called “right to know” this info at the expense of the private property rights of the company.”

Really? So if I understand this correctly the company has more rights than the individual. Property rights of a company trump an individual’s right to know what chemicals are being pumped into the ground (or water, or air) around them? Okay, if that is the case, who pays for the outside auditor? Who has the fiscal responsibility to pay for the monitoring? Is it the community’s responsibility? What if they don’t have the financial resources to pay for an auditor?

“The company would have no fear of disclosing its information to the auditor because the auditor would be bound by contract to confidentiality.”

What? If a company knew the chemicals they were using could (or do) cause contamination and danger to individuals, they would have every incentive to not disclose the all chemicals or information to an auditor for fear of being shut down.
You said it yourself, “Even if they could get such disclosure, who is to say the company has provided a complete list?” Just because there is an auditor sworn to secrecy (which obviously benefits the company), doesn’t mean the company has any more incentive to be honest and forthright. And since everything is confidential or proprietary, no one, not even an auditor, can verify that the company is providing all the materials necessary for determining the impact.

“Residents could rest assured that their interest were being well-served by the results of the independent expert scrutiny.”

Only if the auditor and/or community believed and could verify that the company was providing full disclosure.

“Applying a monetary cost to their pollution would serve as a strong incentive for the company not to allow contamination to occur in the first place.”

Are you certain of this? The company could just as easily claim the auditor’s findings were incorrect or that there were other factors or circumstances that led to the contamination and refuse to pay the fines, tie it up in court for years, and force the community to pay large legal expenses to fight the company for remediation. Of course the scenario I describe never happens, does it, so what is there to worry about?

I actually agree (to a point). It just went out of control when the sociopathic Miron got himself a bit of actual power. We have still not finished paying for that blunder. There is still much to be revealed about that.

–

Jeze,
Unfortunately I forgot about Barry Knott.
– I like Barry and others as people. Not as Lawyers, now.

All politics are local. If you have been laid off, if you haven’t received a raise in 5 years, if your copays keep going up as well as your property tax, if half the people where you work are gone and your boss keeps telling you that there are 10 people that would love your job, if you see your kid’s tuition going up by double digits every year, if you see the cost of just filling your gas/oil tank becoming a major ordeal you are NOT a happy voter.

–

Except for the college issue …” that’s what I’ve been writin/talkin bout!”

Just check many of my posts from the beginning until now ….

One does not have to agree with socialist solutions to agree certain ones
had correctly analysed many problems.

I believe in american capitalism where people can get along, play nice,
use each others “skills, talents, abilities, products, and services, without
the abuses caused my the ignorant, mean, and selfish.

–

Which brings me back to my point. Neither Republicans nor Democrats nor Tea Partiers, nor Progressives nor “Classical Liberals” have presented any sort of rational plan to resolve or even alleviate this pain.

–

My American Hippocrates plan, based on Adam Smith principles and core
structures with the Marshall Plan and GI Bill could work, if there were
“undiverted funding.”

“It is certainly a stretch to use the case of Justin Loschiavo/Jim Miron as an example of what is wrong with collective bargaining.” – So you’re saying that members of the 407 were not forced to accept Loschiavo as a member and then forced to spend their hard-earned dues on defending him as a result of collective bargaining? As with everything Miron, this is an egregious example. It does, however, illustrate a fundamental problem with denying union members their freedom of association.

“Both sides tend to lay it on the table and measure who’s is longer.” – Shouldn’t they? To borrow your phraseology, employers “exploit” employees and employees “exploit” employers. Of course, I don’t share this antiquated, adversarial view of the workplace.

“I doubt it is because of a concern for their workers. Do you think it could possibly be management’s fear of union organizing?” – Fear of union organizing? Hardly. Unions have withered in the private sector as work has become individualized, empowering workers to negotiate their own contracts without paying another middle man in addition to Uncle Sam. As to the motivations of companies, many, believe it or not, understand that if you treat your workers well, they will achieve more for the company. There are lists of companies, including in a recent issue of Connecticut Magazine, of such employers who are genuinely concerned. The majority, though, are probably concerned for more pragmatic reasons: retention of talent, avoidance of lawsuits, fear of work-related injuries, and so on.

“In a real world the only way to reduce a 12 year old enormous deficit is to raise taxes and lower services.” – Spoken like a true Washington insider. No, the way you deal with the deficit is to reign in profligate spending and rationalize entitlements (can we agree to eliminate Social Security for millionaires and billionaires?) Raising revenues, as we learned the hard way in CT with the income tax, just means that there is more money to spend on favored special interest groups and new programs that politicians can aggrandize themselves by creating.

The “Progressive” economic plan:

“There is another way, but no one knows how to accomplish it: Lower the unemployment rate to <4%. 25 million more people will be paying taxes and happy to do so." – Jez, I think you need to go to get that myopia checked out. I have linked to several policy proposals, sometimes in video form, on how to reduce unemployment, revitalize the economy, and create more prosperity.

"All politics are local. If you have been laid off, if you haven't received a raise in 5 years, if your copays keep going up as well as your property tax, if half the people where you work are gone and your boss keeps telling you that there are 10 people that would love your job, if you see your kid's tuition going up by double digits every year, if you see the cost of just filling your gas/oil tank becoming a major ordeal you are NOT a happy voter." – All true. Now wouldn't it be nice if we could get our government to adopt policies that would actually address these problems rather than supposibly well-intentioned policies ("stimuli," cash for clunkers, Wall Street and auto bailouts, ObamaCare), that not only fail to achieve their stated goals but create all manner of new societal ills?

"Neither Republicans nor Democrats nor Tea Partiers, nor Progressives nor 'Classical Liberals' have presented any sort of rational plan to resolve or even alleviate this pain." – As President Obama you seem to believe that if you haven't heard of an idea or have heard it but disagree with it, that it doesn't exist. But there are no shortage of ideas, many of which actually work in practice. Here are just a few:

“Just because I didn’t respond right away doesn’t mean I wasn’t considering your response.” – Well, you did respond at some length to the other post and said nothing about that one, so I had to ask.

“So if I understand this correctly the company has more rights than the individual.” – You clearly don’t understand me correctly or the plain meaning of words if this is what you think I said in that paragraph or anywhere in my response. No, what I clearly said is that this is a “situation of competing interests.” Both parties have legitimate interests that must be addressed in any resolution. And, certainly, residents safety trumps the company’s interests. What you fail to grasp is that residents interests are ill-served by mere disclosure for the practical reasons I listed. And, that protecting the rights of both parties is possible, and mutually beneficial, within the compliance framework I described.

“Property rights of a company trump an individual’s right to know what chemicals are being pumped into the ground (or water, or air) around them?” – This is not creative writing, Chris. You’re arguing with an opponent that doesn’t exist. I never said this, there is no honest way to interpret what I wrote as saying this, nor would I ever say this.

Since you fail to accord me even a modicum of respect by characterizing my response inaccurately, I am not going to read your post any further. This is a serious discussion and you have shown yourself not to be serious.

“Since you fail to accord me even a modicum of respect by characterizing my response inaccurately, I am not going to read your post any further. This is a serious discussion and you have shown yourself not to be serious.”

You’re hilarious Portia! You’re like a child who throws a hissy fit when he/she doesn’t get his/her way. “Since you fail to accord me even a modicum of respect by characterizing my response inaccurately…” And where in any of these posts have you have accorded me respect Portia? There was no disrespect either intended or displayed in my post, which is more than I can say for any of the insulting garbage you throw at me on a regular basis.

This was your statement Portia, ” Clearly, residents without advanced degrees in chemistry would be ill-served by the so-called “right to know” this info at the expense of the private property rights of the company.” I get that there are competing interests. But your argument appears to be that unless individuals have the appropriate educational background that makes them an expert in chemical compounds, they’re better off not having access to the information. But it’s not really about advanced degrees in chemistry. Even if there was a chemist living in the community, the rights of the company will outweigh the individual’s right to the information.

Why would residents be “ill-served” in having access to this information? Because they might be smart enough to research it for themselves and come to the conclusion they don’t want those chemicals being used in close proximity to their homes or drinking water supplies? Because they might discover that the company is deceiving the residents by not disclosing all the information and data necessary to make an informed decision?

COMIC Yakoff Smirnoff:
Capitalism is exploitation of man …. by man
Communism is the other way around.

2) “Of course, I don’t share this antiquated, adversarial view of the
workplace.”

On a daily basis I speak to companies that downsize with 1/2 or 1/4
or even 1/10 the number of employees …. daddy what was a workplace?

3) “Fear of union organizing? Hardly.
Unions have withered in the private sector as work has become
individualized, empowering workers to negotiate their own contracts
without paying another middle man in addition to Uncle Sam.

PORTIA, with the lowering percentage of union membership nation
wide, has the average worker improved or decreased:
1 – Pay
2 – Benefits

While unionization and organization is so hated and demonized, how many
business and semi-business social groups does the average business owner
belong to?
Lower pay for worked can allow of more profit if skills are relatively fungible.

4) residents safety trumps the company’s interests.

SO FAR SO GOOD

residents interests are ill-served by mere disclosure for the practical
reasons I listed.
And, that protecting the rights of both parties is possible,
and mutually beneficial,
within the compliance framework I described.

CONDITIONAL STATEMENT to better QUALIFY the answer!

5) case of Justin Loschiavo/Jim Miron as an example of what is wrong
with collective bargaining.”

THERE ARE SOOOOO MANY GAMES AND LIES IN STRATFORD …..
I JUST DO NOT BELIEF FACE VALUE.
I BELIEVE THERE ARE COVER STORIES.

6) to reduce a 12 year old enormous deficit is to raise taxes and
lower services.” – Spoken like a true Washington insider.
No, the way you deal with the deficit is to reign in profligate
spending and rationalize entitlements

INTEL does not embrace certain economic theoris espoused.

7) (can we agree to eliminate Social Security for millionaires and
billionaires?)

With SS targeted to start age 69, and predicated on Stock & Oil Markets
it is more likely millionaires and billionaires want to eliminate Social
Security for the masses by pilfering it too?

This slobbering shtick, yet another blateration, does nothing to conceal your bad faith. Perhaps you don’t recall. You (feigned) interest in a free market perspective in addressing the real-world problem described above. Despite my reservations, I obliged your request and proceeded to provide some initial thoughts. Instead of debating any specific point of what I wrote, you responded by outright fabricating my views. To further refresh your memory:

“Property rights of a company trump an individual’s right to know what chemicals are being pumped into the ground (or water, or air) around them?” – This is not creative writing, Chris. You’re arguing with an opponent that doesn’t exist. I never said this, there is no honest way to interpret what I wrote as saying this, nor would I ever say this.

When called out, you responded that this is just about “getting my way.” If by “getting my way” you mean not having what I write completely disregarded so you can accuse me of semi-literate slanders against classical liberals and the free-market that you picked-up 2nd hand from 3rd rate “Progressives” who have never made it past page 1 of the Manifesto, yes, I rather do prefer my way. Writers do have intent and words do have meaning. Sneer all you want but “your panniers of vacivities” (to borrow from Milton) have no buyers here.

If you disagree with my preliminary proposal, let’s hear it. If you have questions, all the better. But don’t attack me for what I manifestly did not write and never would.

And, please, drop the afficitious calls for “respect.” No matter what, you will say I don’t accord you enough “respect.” No matter what, I will make the opposite claim. While I know the evidence is clearly on my side, this incident being just the latest example, the decision of who is in the right must ultimately rest with our fair readers (are there any?).

“But your argument appears to be that unless individuals have the appropriate educational background that makes them an expert in chemical compounds, they’re better off not having access to the information. ” ?! No, that’s clearly, unmistakably, unambiguously, blindingly not anywhere close to what I wrote.

“Because they might discover that the company is deceiving the residents by not disclosing all the information and data necessary to make an informed decision?” – You believe residents “might discover that the company is deceiving” them by researching a list of chemicals provided to them… by the company?! If you just wanted to deal in abstractions – unrealistic ones at that – why did you ask for my perspective at all?

Here is what I actually wrote on this point: “Even if [residents] could get such disclosure, who is to say the company has provided a complete list? (you did say this is Haliburton, right?)”

As a fellow connoisseur of verbiage, I think you will enjoy my latest rejoinder to Chris.

Now as to some of your more discernible points:

1.) I know you like to jest with the Smirnoff quote, but I never found it funny the first fifty times and this time was no different. If I may suggest a more accurate, if less pithy, summation:

Free-market capitalism means opportunity for an individual… with other individuals, for the benefit of themselves and, in turn, society.

Communism is oppression and exploitation of an individual… by armed mediocrities, for the enrichment of themselves and, in turn, the detriment of society.

2.) “On a daily basis I speak to companies that downsize…” – you’re discussing the “seen.” What would be the “unseen,” in a robust, free-market economy (admittedly, not to be confused with the corporate socialist/crony capitalist system we have now) is the jobs created elsewhere by efficiency and productivity gains.

As Robert D. McTeer Jr. has written: “Economics majors understand the non-intuitive reality that real progress comes from job destruction. It once took 90% of our population to grow our food. Now it takes 3%. Pardon me, Willie, but are we worse off because of the job losses in agriculture? The would-have-been farmers are now college profs and computer gurus or singing the country blues on Sixth Street.

If you want jobs for jobs’ sake, trade in bulldozers for shovels. If that doesn’t create enough jobs, replace shovels with spoons. Heresy! But there will always be more work to do than people to work. So instead of counting jobs, we should make every job count. We will occasionally hit a soft spot when we have a mismatch of supply and demand in the labor market. But that is temporary. Don’t become a Luddite and destroy the machinery, or become a protectionist and try to grow bananas in New York City.”

Improved. Or, I should say, continued improving as if nothing had happened. Private sector unionization peaked in the late-1950s. Average compensation for private sector workers has been increasing since at least 1950. In real 2008 dollars, average private sector worker compensation in the late 1950s cleared $30K, while in this past decade that number was in the upper $50K range (Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis as cited in http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-5.pdf ). There number would presumably be even higher were it not for the Stagflation of the 1970s (thanks Keynesians!).

“Lower pay for worked can allow of more profit if skills are relatively fungible.” – Let’s be clear. You’re describing a situation in which there is a surplus supply of workers of equal skill, who are willing to work for “lower pay” than would be offered if any of those conditions was different. If there was a scarcity of workers and/or one of the workers possessed superior skills and/or they were not willing to work but the company needed their services, they would be “paid more” than the prevailing wage. In our increasingly specialized economy, individuals are increasingly not fungible.

“While unionization and organization is so hated and demonized, how many
business and semi-business social groups does the average business owner
belong to?” – George, I am second to none in defending workers’ freedom to choose (to borrow a phrase). Look back and see what I have written on unions to verify. What I was doing here with Jez was to point out the flawed structure of public sector unions, which causes even good unions to do bad things, like have to accept Loschiavo as a member and then (to add insult to injury) have to pay member dues to defend him. That was not fair to union members or tax payers.

7.) “…is more likely millionaires and billionaires want to eliminate Social
Security for the masses by pilfering it too?” – What is there to pilfer? Social Security is bankrupt. Not 30 years from now… right now. It is a PAYG pension scheme. Even if more workers were employed and having their salaries taxed (I mean “contributions” stolen), the structural unsoundness would remain; the ratio of baby-boomers to productive members of society is simply “unsustainable.” Not to worry, though. Pesky (and expensive) life expectancies are bound to decline once ObamaCare kicks in. (J/K but only about baby-boomers not being productive members of society. The majority are, but the ones in public office and those writing for the Atlantic, give the rest a bad name See: http://www.theatlantic.com/debates/boomers ).

“I believe you shall agree with me and articulate GOOD SPENDING.” – Of course, I agree. But before we get into a debate about what constitutes “good spending” or how you arrived at your percentages of “good” and “bad,” consider the fact that national government spending, good, neutral, or bad, has dramatically and unsustainably increased in the past couple years.

“What I am saying is that the union, in this case Local 407, was betrayed by management. There is supposed to be a process by which officers are hired and in this case it was subverted.” – In that case, we don’t disagree. I’m phrasing it that way because of what comes next: What I have been saying is that the existing process was inherently flawed in its protections of members’ rights. If members had the freedoms I outlined above, Miron’s betrayal would have been made significantly harder if not rendered impossible.

“Lawyers and doctors just wore me out today.” – Hope you and the MIL are hanging tough.

“What I have been saying is that the existing process was inherently flawed in its protections of members’ rights. If members had the freedoms I outlined above, Miron’s betrayal would have been made significantly harder if not rendered impossible.”
Just to lay this particular argument to rest; although lawyers, mediators, management and union reps attempt to foresee possible scenarios of the future in contract negotiations, it is very difficult if not impossible to predict what might happen when a sociopath gains control of the process.

What I find lacking in some of your above arguments is your foundation of a normal economy. Throughout your links and quotes it is assumed that your free market theories operate in a normal environment. To put it plainly, your arguments should begin the qualifier “all things being equal”. However, it is obvious that they are not. The U.S. economy was on the verge of collapse, busily destroying 700,000 jobs per month. Yet public corporations (the ones that must submit 10k’s) have been declaring historic profits and banks are still borrowing our money at zero percent interest.
For 10 years we have tried lower taxes on businesses and the wealthy to no avail. Business and higher level income individuals simply accumulated more wealth.
In a “normal” economy positive EBITDA would be used to invest/expand a business. In this economy it is simply parked or used to repurchase shares. This is a wholly non-productive use of capital.
In a capitalist society, one of the most important things is, you know, capital. Capital has ceased flowing in this economy. Lines of credit are more difficult to access, mortgages are more difficult to access, venture funding (either at the initial or mezzanine level) is almost non-existent and even receivables borrowing is a major effort.
The United States has forgotten how to do the business of business. Instead the concentration of capital has been used to make profit from literally theoretical paper/electronic transactions based upon nothing more than algorithms.
I don’t think that discussion of “ObamaCare” or “Socialism” or “Communism” or “Free Market” or “Protectionist” or “Progressivist” or any other “ism” or “ist” is particularly helpful in developing a solution. It simply labels an idea to be rejected.

Personally I believe that the shortcoming of American businesses is the “quarter view”. Business management in the U.S. is almost solely focused on this quarter. Or, in other words, “What have you done for me lately?” Long range planning, R&D, innovation and yes, risk, are almost a sin in this environment.

“attempt to foresee possible scenarios” – No special predictive powers are required. Union workers are being denied their freedom of association. Nothing good can come of that, with or without a sociopath as mayor.

“What I find lacking in some of your above arguments is your foundation of a normal economy.” – I try to distinguish between the corporate socialist/crony capitalist system we have now and the benefits of a freer market. In any case, we should be moving in the direction of a freer market, trade liberalization, and limited, constitutional government.

To provide a quick example: President Obama recently failed to deliver a new “free trade” agreement with South Korea that was completed two years ago. If the agreement was actually about “free trade,” it could be accomplished rather succinctly: All unfair barriers (tarriffs and other protectionist measures) to and government interferences (subsidies, bailouts, and other autarkic measures) in the free trade between the United States and South Korea are henceforth abolished for the mutual benefit of the citizens of both countries. Still I would support the existing, deeply flawed agreement, as it represents a little progress.

“free market theories operate in a normal environment.” – Please define the “normal environment.” As I’ve written previously, even the Soviet Union had a market economy. Of course, it wasn’t a free-market. And that’s the point. Even the bastion of communism had to cope with the inalienable laws of supply and demand and the indefatigable “invisible hand.” Needless to say, they did it rather badly. The more honest proponents of an “alternative,” actually various government-created distortions (e.g., fascism, communism) admit that they favor nebulous “equality” over real opportunity and individual liberty. In the real-world, the greatest progress for society has and continues to be achieved when the “normal environment” was, on spectrum of freedom, most free. If you mean to say our current “normal environment” is increasingly less free – the US has been downgraded on various indexes due to the failed polices of Presidents Bush and Obama – I’m in agreement.

“The U.S. economy was on the verge of collapse, busily destroying 700,000 jobs per month. Yet public corporations (the ones that must submit 10k’s) have been declaring historic profits and banks are still borrowing our money at zero percent interest.” – The sky was darkened and stormy but not falling. With any luck, the interventions of this and the last administrations won’t change that no matter how hard they try. To quote Deirdre McCloskey:

“The basic mistake that Krugman and many economists and most journalists make is to suppose that the present bad situation (any present bad situation) is a Crisis of Capitalism. It’s not. It’s a routine severe recession. I don’t say that it’s fun… I don’t say that government should do nothing to offset it. But I do say, as an economic historian, that we should realize that it’s happened forty times since 1800, and every time the average person and the very poor have ended up with higher real incomes than at the previous peak. Every single time. Even during the horrible governmental foul-up 1929-1941 in the US.

Innovation is what drives any creative economy. The result since 1800 has been that the average person in the world has moved from $3 day (in current prices) to $30 a day, and a massive share of the world’s poor have been relieved….

….

So the Big Recession is not the Final Crisis that our friends on the left would like to see. It is not a matter of the sky falling. And so it does not require a New Economics. The current conventional wisdom is mistaken in saying that free-market capitalism has failed. For 37 percent of humanity in China and India it is succeeding spectacularly, and has long succeeded for many of the rest of us. We don’t need to abandon markets, or to regulate much further the most regulated sector of the economy—banking and Wall Street. [I would add that we just don’t need to bailout them out, either]

….

Business bubbles and then crashes have happened when people have gotten overexcited about new railways and old farms, as in the 1850s, or overexcited about new financial assets and old houses, as in the 2000s. But when the bubble bursts, innovation soon repairs the damage. During the miserable down-times the opportunities pile up. The 1930s for instance was, surprisingly, the most innovative decade of the century.

Policy conclusion? By all means help people survive, with unemployment insurance and GI bills for education, to get ready for the next wave of innovations. But don’t damage the economy’s ability to innovate by freezing people in, say, jobs making autos—as Krugman’s old Keynesian version of a New Economics would recommend (http://www.deirdremccloskey.org/editorials/krugman.php ).”

“For 10 years we have tried lower taxes on businesses and the wealthy to no avail.” – I have already given my perspective on supply-side. I find it more plausible than demand-side, but not the panacea dogmatic proponents believe it to be.

“This is a wholly non-productive use of capital.” – Agreed. Where we depart is that you seem to think people should invest regardless of the environment. Regulatory and tax uncertainty, to your mind, has no effect. Approx. $2 trillion says you’re wrong.

“Lines of credit are more difficult to access, mortgages are more difficult to access, venture funding (either at the initial or mezzanine level) is almost non-existent and even receivables borrowing is a major effort.” – Now why would that be? After all, the American people have had billions of dollars stolen from them by politicians to bailout bad actors (the poliyicians’ favored special interests) supposedly to get lending going again. Do you really want me to dredge up the quotes from all the “Progressive” masters of the universe who promised increased lending?

“Instead the concentration of capital has been used to make profit from literally theoretical paper/electronic transactions based upon nothing more than algorithms.” – Agreed. Wouldn’t it be great to let the bad actors fail so other actors would not be encouraged by the chance of privatized profits and socialized risks to do the same thing over and over again?

“I don’t think that discussion… is particularly helpful in developing a solution. It simply labels an idea to be rejected.” – I don’t really care about labels so much as principles and policy ideas derived from those principles.

Whether you care to admit it or not, the national government has been experimenting with a set of policy proscriptions straight out of the “Progressive” play book. Whether or not you wish to admit that, we both realize that, by whatever name Presidents Bush and Obama have governed, their polices have certainly not made the economy better; and, more plausibly, their polices have made matters worse.

Where this leaves us is with a straightforward choice: more of the same or reforms that actually work. More of the same means more national government spending, intervention in the economy,protectionism and economic nationalism, and thus increasing unemployment and poverty. Reforms that actually work would mean, less national government spending and intervention in the economy, more free trade and free enterprise, and thus decreasing unemployment and poverty.

“Personally I believe that the shortcoming of American businesses is the ‘quarter view’. Business management in the U.S. is almost solely focused on this quarter. Or, in other words, ‘What have you done for me lately?’ Long range planning, R&D, innovation and yes, risk, are almost a sin in this environment.” – Agreed. Get rid of the “political entrepreneurs,” the businesses that survive only because of subsides, bailouts, and the favors of politicians, so we can return to a free, competitive, long-term economy.

I have put my constructive suggestions on multiple levels of documentation.
Some suggestions could me less confusing / more articulate. 😦
I have given both specifics and generalities … and related criticisms.

Portia’s constructive suggestions often get lost in orignal post than make
my “copy n paste” look concise. 😉

Chris has often made constructive suggestions.
Portia disagrees on Chris’s merit, appearently delighting in tormenting
Chris, while choosing not to give Chris credit for being willing to mix it up
FAR MORE than most posters.
– Without the trading insults and protests, those posts are interesting.

“Union workers are being denied their freedom of association. Nothing good can come of that, with or without a sociopath as mayor.”
I would suggest that you need a bit more experience organizing or participating in union activities. As for our previous sociopath, let’s remember that he fired nearly all of the Supervisor’s union members including the president and vice president and conducted the only known audit of a union town employee and attempted to have her dismissed from her subsequent employment. By the way, the audit showed she had the audacity to write handwritten notes in the margins of a spreadsheet. And lest we forget had two (not one but two) Local 407 presidents arrested.

“In any case, we should be moving in the direction of a freer market, trade liberalization, and limited, constitutional government.” That direction is just fine. I have no arguments. But once again, we will probably disagree on the limitations of your “free market”. There is simply no such thing as total freedom within an organized society. I believe that condition is called “anarchy”. As for a “Constitutional” government, we have that already. It may not be to the degree of your liking (nor mine) but we have it. So-called free markets are never really free. For decades the Japanese (and later Koreans) sold steel in this country for less (far less) than it cost them to produce. As a result..well, tell us where we can contact Carpenter Steel, Republic Steel, Bethlehem Steel or even U.S. Steel. The Japanese and Koreans simply went to business school and studied the methods of Rockefeller (Exxon) Carnegie (U.S. Steel) and Cornelius Vanderbilt (railroads). These are not champions of “free” markets. What free market tactic is available to us when market rules do not apply?

“Wouldn’t it be great to let the bad actors fail so other actors would not be encouraged by the chance of privatized profits and socialized risks to do the same thing over and over again?”
Agreed. Perhaps we should write Paulson and John Boehner a letter? Who the hell repealed Glass-Steagall anyway?

“I don’t really care about labels” LOL! Can you go a whole post without typing “Progressive” or “Obamacare”?

“Regulatory and tax uncertainty, to your mind, has no effect. Approx. $2 trillion says you’re wrong.”
I don’t recall saying “no effect”. Nonetheless, the last five congresses have bent over backwards to grant businesses whatever they desired. There may still be some legislation remaining like don’t paint things with lead or don’t manufacture asbestos bed blankets. But to say that businesses are not investing the capital they are accumulating solely because of “regulatory and tax uncertainty” assumes that regulatory or tax uncertainty has never existed before. In fact, it apologizes for the lack of business foresight and planning that is supposed to happen in American business. What is really uncertain is how many Americans will be without jobs or incomes after November 30th. In my own uninformed opinion, this lame duck Congress will most likely pass a very short extension (perhaps 30 days) and just kick the can down the road until the Republicans kick the can off the cliff in January. Let’s see what happens when 15 or 20 million Americans can’t pay their rent/mortgage, utilities, food, clothing or anything else. How many more jobs will be destroyed as a result?

I am not automatically anti-government nor do I look to government for every solution. However, I do believe government (at least ours) has a responsibility to it’s citizens’ for their health, safety and well being. Normal, hardworking Americans are in a crisis of existence. We have hemorrhaged jobs and incomes for three years now with no end in sight. I suppose what I find so frustrating is that no one in leadership , really, no one is talking about that. Instead the issue is extending tax cuts for the wealthy.

After 1 year, replacements are NO longer elected,
but appointed by the party?

–

I would not be surprized if the whole Christian Miron /
Police suspended and Potter resignation was planned
before last year, especially if Jim reps # 6?

–

Farmer had a job and has pled guilty.
Farmer was the one who filed a certain grievance which some people
believe should have been a criminal matter, but “MAY” have claims of
“Statutes of Limitations, for Jan 2008 retirees & Jan 2011 “settlement?”

McNeil + Soto NOT pled guilty.
Both have excellent reputations.
One reason I always smelled rat was walking late into Jan 2010 Pension
meeting and Harkins and McNeil were sitting next to each other and
were almost “holding hands.”

I would hate to be right about McNeil?
Jeze believes strongly in McNeil. So do others.

If Jim is appointed to rep District # 6, would he have to recuse himself
on the MILLION DOLLAR SEALED SETTLEMENT (Tax Free? Like disabilities?)
which may or may not be offered to a certain candidate for Stratford PD?

I favor putting metal detectors in Town Hall / Board Ed, to preempt any
one from over reacting …. like Jeze or certain members of the Police!

In honor of consistency of certain B UTTER NUTS
What do you think of redisignation as Mir oNUTS?

Ironic:

mIRONIC

Ethnic Russian Dick Miron and his mIRON curtain.
Syl wrote something about what he did / allegedly did to russian
church members and money? I am unsure of details.

Contaminated “Minor” Avenue is an anagram of “miron.”
It was 1/2 way between ann’s home and dick’s ex-condo.

–

Someone claimed Mr. Fuller is in Sales and Marketing.
I wonder if he works with Heather?

Mr. Fuller kept his hands by his side reminding me of “Burturla look alike”
on “Boston Legal,” with tourette syndrome?

Mr. Fuller kept he head down at a 45 degree angle = extremely unusual.

When Mr. Fuller spoke (only time) he spoke rapidly about the Fire Truck
“accident” and the CT POST stories. It was if he was given specific lines
to quote and to reiforce the story about the fire truck accidents?

Those fire trucks appear to have the engines and most expensive parts
in OK shape, which could be resold, and the parts are worth more than
the whole from my time working for auto part store sales.

–

Maybe Stratford should change our seal to a picture of Pinnochio
and our motto from “town for all seasons” and “offering more from
forest to shore” to “I GOT MINE!”

In this past election for State Senator, I, as many others, chose to vote against Jimmy Miron. Our vehicle for doing so was Kevin Kelly. Just about the only argument in favor of Kelly’s candidacy, in fact, was who he was not. Indeed, almost anyone would be better than Jimmy Miron, that paragon of corruption, incompetence, and arrogance. As an admittedly lackluster Kelly voter as well as a principled Republican, I feel compelled to respond to Kelly’s prima facie incoherence contained within a string of bad policy proposals and pronouncements, as delineated in the Stratford Star, primarily in his own “From the Capital” column. I leave it to the reader to judge the goodness of his intentions; my concern is with his flawed premises, and the terrible results such polices would inflict on the citizens and taxpayers of the 21st district as well as our State.

Kelly writes,* in the conclusion of his February 3rd column, “Shaping our state with constituent ideas,” that “Commonsense policies that eliminate waste by consolidating state agencies, engage private companies that can perform public duties at a lower cost, or polices that place moratoriums on the creation of new government programs are all proposals that will benefit our state long-term. State government has simply grown beyond taxpayers’ ability to pay for it, and we need to reverse this trend. As I work to improve our district and state, I do so with Connecticut’s weakened economy in mind. I am committed to passing legislation that aides our families and businesses while reducing state government and spending.”

This sentiment would have been much appreciated were it not for Kelly’s preceding seven paragraphs, in which he proposes one bill after another that would grow state government yet further “beyond taxpayers’ ability to pay for it.” Before critiquing each bill, I should note that it would be a service to constituents for elected officials to provide basic transparency in the form of bill numbers, for ease of review.

*Also, that in searching for Kelly’s column online, I discovered an identical conclusion (and other phrases) taken from a January 7th column by State Senator Kevin WItkos (R-8) (cf: http://www.senaterepublicans.ct.gov/press/witkos/2010/010711.html). Kelly’s apparent plagiarism is all the more disturbing given that he clearly does not affirm what WItkos intended by those words. (WItkos used his column, in vibrant contrast to Kelly, to advance several good ideas, including “legislation that seeks to increase government accountability. This legislation would require a two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and House chambers when implementing state mandates on municipalities. Requiring a supermajority in order to pass a mandate will help to keep the growth of our local budgets and property taxes in check.”)

Bill 1: Raymark Clean-up. Kelly lauds how he “drafted legislation that would not only remove the remainder of toxic waste, but will also expedite the process.” While I leave it to others to discuss the merits of disturbing asbestos, which is only or primarily toxic when airborne, how is Kelly planning to finance this new round of remediation? Where is the toxic waste to go? Are we sure that existing containment of the asbestos and other contaminants is less preferable to excavation and relocation? What effect can Kelly’s bill have given the EPA’s existing legal obligations to remediate Raymark sites? Perhaps the bill is only symbolic, in which case I hope Kelly finds many more tautologies to pass legislation for/against. Courageously opposing Raymark waste (anyone in favor?) is, anyway, less costly than his other policy prescriptions.

Bill 2: Loud Motorcycles. This literally sounds like legislation in search of a problem. Worse yet, Kelly makes no mention of the costs of this bill’s implementation and enforcement. Who is going to determine the “state decibel limits”? How are they going to determine those limits? How much will it cost taxpayers to outfit testing facilities with the equipment and trained personnel to ensure compliance? Moreover, is the occasional and momentarily annoying noise of a loud motorcycle on a summer’s day worthy of a year-round, taxpayer-funded noise reduction campaign? If our state was not on the precipice of financial ruin, I might be more sympathetic.

Bill 3: Autism Insurance Mandate. On the perhaps quaint principle that individuals are fully capable of buying products that best suit their own needs, because they know their needs best, I am opposed to all government mandates (read: controls) of the health insurance market. Mandates are far from cost free; the parents of non-autistic children and even individuals who don’t have children will have to bear the costs of Kelly’s kindness. And while Kelly may politically benefit from this benevolence at the expense of others, the true beneficiaries of such protectionist legislation are the insurance company cartels, i.e., those who Kelly is saving from the challenge of out-of-state competition. Thank Kelly and those who imagine they can micromanage something as complex as the health insurance market every time your premium rises.

To be fair, one mandate is hardly worth acknowledging given existing and expanding national government controls to deny individual economic liberty over health insurance and health care decisions. A parent who wants to purchase a policy that includes “coverage for the treatment of autism spectrum disorder” has few, if any, options. And those few are probably not going to be attractive. So while Kelly is seemingly on somewhat firmer ground here, proposing yet another mandate, no matter how well-intentioned, is only going to make matters worse by making the market less free for out-of-state competition. Our only hope is for the “corrupt, unconstitutional, and irredeemable” Obamacare (in the word’s of Cato’s Michael Cannon) to be repealed and/or revoked, and replaced with real health care reform that empowers individuals, not government control freaks (politicians and bureaucrats) and their corporate cronies.

Bill 4: High Electricity Rates. Kelly proposes legislation “aim[ed] at,” though not promising, “reducing the cost of electricity…” And how are we to achieve this magical cost savings? Kelly believes himself alone to have arrived at a solution that has evaded all his predecessors: if only the Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) had “greater oversight and accountability over retail electric suppliers,” rates would be lower. If only the “DPUC would also be responsible for developing a procurement program to locate and negotiate lower electric rates,” rates would be lower. To believe either proposition is to be willfully ignorant of the DPUC’s malevolent role in increasing the cost of electricity for Connecticut consumers.

What is the purpose of the DPUC? While the unpleasantly “Progressive” word “control” in the DPUC’s name might have escaped Kelly, its authoritarian meaning should not be forgotten by those who suffer under its policies. Per its mission statement:

“The Department of Public Utility Control is statutorily charged with regulating to varying degrees the rates and services of Connecticut’s investor owned, electricity, natural gas, water, and telecommunication companies and is the franchising authority for the state’s cable television companies. In the industries that are still wholly regulated, the Department must balance the public’s right to safe adequate and reliable utility service at reasonable rates with the provider’s right to a reasonable return on its investment. The Department also keeps watch over competitive utility services to promote equity among the competitors while customers reap the price and quality benefits of competition and are protected from unfair business practices.”

In other words, the DPUC already has vast coercive and capricious powers — and has still completely and unarguably failed in lowering costs. And, indeed, the DPUC must fail, because its mission includes fungible concepts of “equity,” “reasonable rates,” and “rights,” which have nothing to do with lowering costs. In a free market, there is no need for a bureaucrat to pretend to “balance the public’s right to safe [sic] adequate and reliable utility service at reasonable rates with the provider’s right to a reasonable return on its investment,” because a utility that does not provide safe, reasonably priced, and superior quality service than a competitor has no “right” to a “reasonable return,” or a return at all, as determined by the free choices of consumers.

Getting back to Kelly, in the limited supplier-side deregulation that has occurred, consumers have benefited (or at least the 38% of consumers who switched suppliers and who account for the most energy usage — rational self-interest at its best). The current UI residential fixed rate is $0.106155 whereas MXEnergy, to name one of several competitors, offers a six-month fixed rate of $0.0899. While that may not seem like much, it quickly accrues to something, on hundreds of kilowatts each month. Still, if Kelly were serious about lowering electric rates, he would not be seeking to destroy the limited freedom in the electric supplier market, or assert, despite all evidence to the contrary, that an already too interventionist DPUC can negotiate lower rates than consumers themselves; he would be liberating the electric distribution market (at minimum) from the DPUC. There, in the distribution fees, is where significant savings for consumers are still to be found.

The “Competitive Transition Assessment,” at a rate controlled by the DPUC, “Allows UI to recover prudent investments in generation assets (called stranded costs)…” But why should consumers, especially those who are not purchasing energy generated by UI, be forced to subsidize UI’s investments in generation?

This past month, my forced contribution to UI’s bottom line was nearly $8 for that line item alone. An additional almost $4 was taken for the “Combined Public Benefits Charge” tax, a government slush fund for corporate welfare and other questionable programs. These include the “Conservation Load Management Program -… to fund programs that promote energy conservation and efficiency” (of course, consumers have ample motivation, cost savings, to conserve energy without being prompted to do so by government at their own expense); “Renewable Energy Investment –… [to] promote the use of renewable (or environmentally friendly) fuel sources, such as solar power, wind, fuel cells, methane gas from landfills, biomass, trash-to-energy, and water,” (I am all for alternative energy sources at whatever price consumers are willing to pay for them in a free market — and not a penny more, i.e., without government coercion, subsidies, and tariffs); and “Systems Benefit Charge – for funding public costs such as public education, hardship protection, and nuclear plant decommissioning” (in other words, for things that politicians and bureaucrats want to fund with our money without having to prove efficacy or submitting to pesky taxpayer scrutiny).

All of this is presumably minuscule when compared with what a DPUC-free electricity bill could be, but I digress.

Kelly’s next column, “Supporting our seniors,” February 17th, makes at least five dubious assumptions: 1.) The needs of seniors will remain static over time, i.e., retiring baby bombers will require the same services as retirees of previous generation. 2.) The number of seniors will necessarily increase. 3.) Though acknowledging that such an increase will make existing programs unsustainable, Kelly’s believes it is preferable to make it easier to “age in place,” thus ensuring that an increase will occur (something which seniors should decide based on their own prudent or imprudent financial planning, as well as prevailing circumstances). 4.) Seniors from other states will not want to move to Connecticut to take advantage of Kelly’s benevolence with our money, thus further exacerbating the sustainability problem. 5.) Connecticut seniors making “60% of the state’s median income,” or $30,484.90 for one person and $39,864.86 for a couple would be better served by Kelly’s programs as opposed to reducing their direct and indirect tax burdens, which is a prime driver of flight from the state for young and old alike.

Implicitly, in all Kelly’s grandiloquent talk of creating “good legislation that preserves the dignity of our seniors,” is the immoral and unconstitutional premise that one group of citizens has claim to the rightful property (earnings) of another group of citizens. This is wrong, whether the beneficiaries are seniors, mass transit riders, public utilities, insurance companies, “green” corporations, or other favored special interests. As Article I Section 1 of our magnificent State Constitution reads: “All men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community (http://www.cslib.org/constitutionalamends/constitution.htm ).”

Now, given the costly nature of Kelly’s legislative wish list, one would think he would welcome Governor Malloy’s massive, malaise-inducing budget, including new taxes projected to reap $1.5 billion in revenue (who wants to bet the actual return is far lower? Double or nothing that actual spending will be higher than projections?) In a response wholly inconsistent with his own record, Kelly describes “Gov. Malloy[’s] … budget plan [as] imposing one of the largest tax increases in our state’s history. Workers, families and businesses are struggling to make cuts to their own budgets to cope with the downturned economy, and our newly elected governor is asking for more: More spending, more taxes and more government. By increasing the state income tax, sales tax, and everything in between, the governor’s budget will harm families, cost the state jobs, and send a message that state government is not accountable.”

Malloy is not alone in sending that message. On Thursday, Kevin Kelly attacked Malloy’s reckless taxing and spending, while, on Friday, the very same Kevin Kelly, championed his own reckless spending. Kelly, always thinking of how to spend our money better than we can ourselves, wants “to require the Department of Transportation to study means of increasing mass transit and rail usage in Fairfield County.” In Kelly’s words: “This bill takes a look at what government can do to encourage people to use mass transit. It comes from the realization that Connecticut not only needs to provide services between rail lines and employers, but that the state also need to incentivize these services to make mass transit a desired service.”

This is utterly fantastic. At a time when commuters are bemoaning the “Metro-North meltdown,” — to borrow the title of a remarkably candid article by Jim Cameron, chairman of the CT Metro-North/Shore Line East Rail Commuter Council — how can Kelly justify further taxpayer expenditure (President Obama and Kelly share a misunderstanding of the word “investments”) on artificially supporting a failed government monopoly, CT rail lines?

As Cameron writes: “we have had two derailments, hundreds of late or canceled trains and one frightening incident (caught on video) of an open door on a moving train. Half of our fleet of cars is out of service, frozen solid.

Trains have broken down, without power for hours, while passengers were given no information. And as I wrote last time, we are no closer to seeing the long-delayed new M8 cars in service….

Weekday trains have been run on a Sunday schedule. Danbury, Waterbury and even New Canaan branch lines have seen more busing than trains. On the mainline, trains arrived so crowded with standees that commuters couldn’t squeeze on even if they wanted to. E-mail alerts from Metro-North would say one thing, the platform PA’s another, and you’d see a third version of reality via CleverCommute. Rumors abound, but the facts are scarce.

Finally, Metro-North wisely decided it had to cut service semi-permanently, or at least until the spring thaw, and introduced a new timetable with 10% fewer trains. Branch line busing will be the rule from Bridgeport to Waterbury, with ‘their’ diesels diverted to the mainline.

In other words, government-monopoly control of trains has resulted in aged, unsafe, and increasingly costly service that does not meet the needs of its “customers.” What private business would long have customers if it continually cut back on the quality and quantity of its service, while continually raising its rates, in the face of increased demand? Luckily, for Metro-North, it does not have to worry about pleasing customers. Connecticut taxpayers are forced to pay for its incompetence, waste, and abuse — (consider the already tens of millions of dollars over-budget and defective M8’s as well as their $27 million testing contract, which continues without so much as a final delivery date) — whether or not they buy a ticket for the pleasure of riding the drab pride of 1970s bureaucrats in 2011.

Even before the recent melt-down, riding the train meant uneven compartment temperatures, the occasional cockroach, often dirty if not cramped seating, usually no provision for refreshments, frequent power outages, and no wifi (I know, I know, how was a bureaucrat supposed to plan for something that didn’t exist at the time the plan was made, but that is precisely my point).

Kelly (unwittingly) approaches the truth with his comment that “…the state also need to incentivize these services to make mass transit a desired service.” Precisely. Consumers, if given a choice in the free market, would never freely choose to travel in the manner Kelly, President Obama, Vice President Biden and other government rail monopolists want them to. Kelly’s “incentivizing” rail comes at the expense of consumers who would more profitably invest in alternative forms of transportation better suited to their particular needs.

The primary reason to oppose both Kelly’s paternalistic government policies and Malloy’s foredoomed taxing to pay for them, are not that they are burdensome (though they are). And it is not that they are costly (though they are that, too). It is what they are fundamentally: a usurpation of our “great and essential principles of liberty and free government” in this, what is supposed to be, the Constitution State.

Portia,
I tend to agree with your positions about the hodgepodge of often
contradictory positions writen by Esquire Kelly.

Anywho can raise questions, as I often have done, as have you and
many other bloggers.

You have posted suggestions as have some others.

However I have offered more suggestions than Miron, Harkins, Dom,
and Kelly combined. Although many of my positions somehow became
Dom’s positions, except I understood why / how they worked and the
short comings.

I got a kick out of Mike Costello’s GAS in the bottled water.
1 – It was straight out of Erin Brocovich, who used a water pitcher,
when negotiating with opposing council. 🙂
2 – I gave EPA Jim Murphy + I forget, a couple Watermellons from my
back yard, which has Poisoned Ground Water. that was several months
ago, come to think about it. Maybe they ate the Watermellon and that
is why the EPA didn’t come back? 😉

I felt bad for Kim + Steph. The 2 ladies on the Council.
They handled it well. Mike’s demeanor out did my crazy act! 🙂
Friends told me they giggled at how timid chair Malloy was compared
to when he tries to shut me down. 8)
He come across loud on TV, but I am hard of hearing and I can not
hear him. Maybe if we had an NFL Style Play clock or NBA shot clock,
that us older folks could see, we would see who gets the L O N G
C O U N T and who gets the short C O U N T ? 😉
> Several people saw Wally Kadeem make the late entrance / appeal to
be added to speak. It was obvious Michael was set to be the last speaker.
> Jim Conners is a decent guy and I doubt he knew of the scripted tirade,
and was grateful to Mr. Costello. Conners has swallowed the RAT for others!

Truthfully, I wonder if there ever was any GAS LEAK or just another story
made up by north end script writers.
IF there was GAS leak affecting DRINKING WATER, certainly the people
deserve to be made WHOLE!!
– Yet
1 – Why didn’t the sue the LEAKER?
2 – Why didn’t ZONING get involved
3 – Why didn’t the HEALTH DEPARTMENT get INVOLVED
4 – Why didn’t the ATTORNEY GENERAL or CRIMINAL ATTORNEY or Town
Attorneys get involved, including local police? Couldn’t one consider the
leak a criminal act of violence, which does not have to be premeditated,
not intentional, just like an accident ….

Within some of my proposed solutions, I also include some contrary
positions, except it is because sometimes there are legitimate
countering positions, which both sides are right and wrong, and
sometimes there are several different factors.

One thing I learn in Union Arbitration …..
Sometimes you have to take a slap on the hand, in order to land
the HAY MAKER on the REAL PROBLEM MAKER?

Portia
-“is the immoral and unconstitutional premise that one group of citizens has claim to the rightful property (earnings) of another group of citizens.”
so in essence what you are saying is the entire welfare/medicaid program is unconstitutional??? They certainly have laid claim to my money. If you are going to make a blanket statement as such…don’t leave the biggest offenders out.

Mr. Kelly may not be 100% on target with everything he has introduced but he has multiple things going for him. First Jim Miron didn’t do any of his bill writing-if he had every other word would have started with “F”. Second, he ran for office and won. Which is more than anyone on this blog has done, including you. Third- he is working on addressing the issues that were repeatedly brought up during the election process. He deserves a little credit for that-when someone opposes every idea you can tell they are from the opposing party, so I am guessing you are a democrat. There are some flaws(like figuring out the funding) that need tweaking-but the ideas are very sound and have a huge support among the voting population. The old timers in Hartford should sit up and pay attention-as there is a revolution coming.

“so in essence what you are saying is the entire welfare/medicaid program is unconstitutional???… If you are going to make a blanket statement as such…don’t leave the biggest offenders out.” – I was specifically referring to the constitutionality of Mr. Kelly’s legislative proposals according to the Connecticut Constitution. My position on the constitutionality of transfer (“entitlement”) programs according to the US Constitution should be obvious. I have written about them elsewhere on this blog, and recommended their replacement with the negative income tax proposed by Milton Friedman. While the negative income tax would similarly fail the constitutional test, the policy is at least less destructive to individual liberty than existing practice. It also has the benefit of addressing the root problem of poverty — poor people need money — without creating a vast, costly social control bureaucracy.

“Mr. Kelly may not be 100% on target” – If I count the paragraphs he plagiarized, I would say his rhetoric is 20% on target.

“First Jim Miron didn’t do any of his bill writing-if he had every other word would have started with ‘F’.”- OK, we agree that Jimmy Miron lived down to the name of Mayor Moron. That does not absolve Kevin Kelly of writing legislation that is not in the best interests of his constituents or the State. If I was a less generous person, I would say that Mr. Kelly is creating a labyrinth of senior citizen programs to generate work for himself and other lawyers.

“Second, he ran for office and won.” – Elections are a poor judge of merit or virtue. President Obama ran for office and won. As the political philosopher Harry Jaffa has it “…we can say that there is no opinion so absurd or so vicious that it might not be affirmed as the ground of some consensus. Cannibal societies rest upon a cannibal consensus. Bolshevism rests upon a Bolshevik consensus. National Socialism (a species of cannibalism) rests upon a National Socialist consensus.”

“Which is more than anyone on this blog has done, including you.” — I have run for office and won, albeit for less august positions than Mr. Kelly’s. But, again, if you really want to follow this logic… are we to ignore President Obama’s destructive policies merely because he won an election two years ago?

“Third- he is working on addressing the issues that were repeatedly brought up during the election process. He deserves a little credit for that” — If constituents were asking for polices that are unconstitutional and/or not financially feasible given the dreadful finances of our state, candidate Kelly owed it to them to be upfront about those realities. In any case, that is no excuse for him to continue to introduce one piece of bad legislation after another, now.

“when someone opposes every idea you can tell they are from the opposing party, so I am guessing you are a democrat.” — Hear that Chris, Jez, and George????!!!! The question is how can I simultaneously be a Republican, anarchist, radical, revolutionary, union militant, Democrat? 😉 As amply documented by my oeuvre as well as my voter registration, I am a very proud Republican. What is confusing you is that while Mr. Kelly and I are in the same party, only one of us is principled.

If I did not know that he was obstenisbly a Republican, his policies would lead me to believe him a Democrat. Please, by all means, explain to me how you can philosophically distinguish his proposals from those of a collectivist Democrat?

You don’t like that I oppose all Mr. Kelly’s bad ideas. Would you prefer I only condemn some of his bad ideas? Sorry, a bad idea is a bad idea. When Mr. Kelly proposes something worthwhile, I will be glad to acknowledge it. I’m waiting….

“There are some flaws(like figuring out the funding) that need tweaking” – Perhaps you haven’t noticed but the State is bankrupt. As Margaret Thatcher put it “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people’s money.” M.M. Malloy and Kelly, you have run out of our money.

“but the ideas are very sound and have a huge support among the voting population.” – The ideas are “very sound”?! On what basis?! Morally, no. Constitutionally, no. Fiscally, no. By all means, offer a rejoinder to what I have written above. Until you do, and do so successfully, please do not act as if every one of those “very sound” ideas have not been refuted by moi.

“The old timers in Hartford should sit up and pay attention-as there is a revolution coming.” –You’re kidding, right? Mr. Kelly’s polices are conservative to reactionary in the comparative senses of those words; “Progressive” in the standard political usage. Meaning, in the words of Milton Friedman:

“‘I never characterize myself as a conservative economist. As I understand the English language, conservative means conserving, keeping things as they are. I don’t want to keep things as they are. The true conservatives today are the people who are in favor of ever bigger government. The people who call themselves liberals today — the New Dealers — they are the true conservatives, because they want to keep going on the same path we’re going on. I would like to dismantle that. I call myself a liberal in the true sense of liberal, in the sense in which it means of and pertaining to freedom.’

Friedman goes on to explain: why the welfare state philosophy of doing good with other people’s money always involves violence and coercion; why even good people lie to the American people once they become politiicians; why the mininum wage law forces employers to discriminate against unskilled workers, especially black teenagers; why government programs almost always have the exact opposite effect of the intended effect; why the harm done by trade unions was becoming patently obvious; why the Great Depression was not necessary and did not arise out of any natural flaw in the market but because of monetary mismanagement, etc (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/06/classic-milton-friedman-classic-liberal.html ).”

“In this past election for State Senator, I, as many others, chose to vote against Jimmy Miron. Our vehicle for doing so was Kevin Kelly. Just about the only argument in favor of Kelly’s candidacy, in fact, was who he was not. Indeed, almost anyone would be better than Jimmy Miron, that paragon of corruption, incompetence, and arrogance. ”

Absolutely correct. If you want to be elected to anything get Miron to run as well.

Voting for Kelly would have been a difficult choice for anyone if not for Miron. His law firm’s (Bishop Kelly & Jackson) access to Stratford’s budget should have been enough to disqualify him.

However, to be fair, Kelly has done astounding work for Seniors and the SWCAA program is a benefit to everyone. It keeps seniors at home rather than in “skilled” nursing facilities. It is less expensive for us and more beneficial to seniors.

I also note you took your chance to slap unions around a bit. It seems to be a popular pastime lately. Especially if you are Barbara Bachman or a Tea Party affiliate.

Aside from the breathtaking abuse of pensions and the use of municipal prohibited practices by “management” in Stratford, the subject of unions always seems to be a favorite of the GOP and their Tea Party sock puppets. Negotiated contracts are not an evil event. Especially when the “management” changes every 2-6 years. I shudder to think how many Town employees would have been “let go” by Miron if not for unions. All of them? There are no scheduled changes of management in the private sector.

PORTIA:
I have written about them elsewhere on this blog, and recommended
their replacement with the negative income tax proposed by Milton
Friedman.
While the negative income tax would similarly fail the constitutional
test, the policy is at least less destructive to individual liberty than
existing practice.
It also has the benefit of addressing the root problem of poverty
— poor people need money
— without creating a vast, costly social control bureaucracy.

GEO: Interesting …. if it worked?

GEO: to PHIN / PORTIA / JEZE / others.
If BERNIE MADOFF ran against JIM MIRON, who would have won?

HARKINS landslided MIRON, DOM, and I getting the ANTI-VOTE, which
was exactly the way he was positioned, postured, and assisted.

It was not unlike the GOODRICH / DOM / STERLING HOUSE man /
Tom Carroll / Myself the first election, where the R insured Jim’s
election.

–

HOW MUCH money
DID Kevin Kelly take in under MIRON – BURTURLA?
HINT it well exceeded $ 500,000

DID Rich Burturla take in under KELLY – JACKSON?

–

For anyone to argue merits of Kelly vs. Miron is like choosing
between political siamese twins, joined at Burturlas’ wallets.

In late 1990s, early 2000s, I rarely saw DICKS (Miron + Burturla)
without the other.

–

PHIN there are sometimes you are extremely ASTUTE and CANDID.
There are other times … you appear to have blinders on.

PORTIA is consistent with many Republican principles, which also
run a significant range of positions, but often center on Friedman
economics, with whom I often agree.

I prefer EISENHOWER type of Republican, which was less party based
and more based on recognizing the geo political and domestic short
comings and inconsistencies, including trying to improve Race and the
quality of life of ex-GI and the MASSES = Greatest Generation!

BONE for PORTIA:
NIXON had the TAPES INSTALLED
NIXON was the ONLY ONE of the PLAYERS who KNEW
NIXON let the others play their GAMES
NIXON KNEW what he was saying would be OUTTED
NIXON was the SECOND MOST PREPARED PRESIDENT in HISTORY
NIXON was devious and counter intuitive.
NIXON was a DICK. People who rise to President, encounter powerful
and crazy people and sometimes ….

GEO: I mostly agree with JEZE POST.
I admit surprize about the program for the SENIORS?
Kelly actually “may” have accomplished something good?

It is not unionism that is bad, nor the grievance arbitration procedure.
It is the discretionary abuses which Jeze posts and things I suffered in
the USPS where MERCY NARY take POWER and use to line pockets.

I do differ from PORTIA / T – party / Republicans on many issues, but
not on ABUSES. It is unfortunate that the ABUSES have created the
ENVIRONMENT which will get people to ACT against their LONG TERM
BEST INTERESTS.

“However, to be fair, Kelly has done astounding work for Seniors and the SWCAA program is a benefit to everyone. It keeps seniors at home rather than in ‘skilled’ nursing facilities.” — Jez,the SWCAA is a private, eleemosynary organization, not a State bureaucracy. Is your point that they get some taxpayer money? In that case, the problem is not with the SWCAA and their good work, but with Mr. Kelly’s kindness with our money.

“It is less expensive for us and more beneficial to seniors.” – There is nothing stopping Mr. Kelly or anyone else from donating their own money to the SWCAA or other organizations that address the needs of seniors. Just because a program is “beneficial” or “less expensive” than alternatives does not make it moral, constitutional, fiscally responsible, or well-informed.

In further reply, and since she is one of Chris’ self-described favorites, here is Ayn Rand at her acerbic best:

“Out of context, such a goal can usually be shown to be desirable; it has to be public, because the costs are not to be earned, but to be expropriated; and a dense patch of
venomous fog has to shroud the issue of means—because the means are to
be human lives….

The examples of such projects are innumerable: ‘Isn’t it desirable to clean
up the slums?’ (dropping the context of what happens to those in the next
income bracket)—’Isn’t it desirable to have beautiful, planned cities, all of
one harmonious style?’ (dropping the context of whose choice of style is to
be forced on the home builders)—’Isn’t it desirable to have an educated
public?’ (dropping the context of who will do the educating, what will be
taught, and what will happen to dissenters)—’Isn’t it desirable to liberate the
artists, the writers, the composers from the burden of financial problems and leave them free to create?’ (dropping the context of such questions as: which
artists, writers and composers?—chosen by whom?—at whose expense?—at
the expense of the artists, writers and composers who have no political pull
and whose miserably precarious incomes will be taxed to ‘liberate’ that
privileged elite?)—’Isn’t science desirable?[‘]….

….

The next time you encounter one of those ‘public-spirited’ dreamers who
tells you rancorously that ‘some very desirable goals cannot be achieved
without everybody’s participation,’ tell him that if he cannot obtain
everybody’s voluntary participation, his goals had jolly well better remain
unachieved—and that men’s lives are not his to dispose of.”

“I also note you took your chance to slap unions around a bit.” – Moi? Not at all. I did quote Mark Perry, who in the course of summerizing Friedman’s remarks, offered the ambigious “why the harm done by trade unions was becoming patently obvious.”

You’re going to focus on that to the exclusion of everything I did write? Are you a secret fan of the DPUC? Did you miss my exposing of Mr. Kelly’s plagiarism?

“Barbara Bachman” – I think you meant Michelle. And, no, I’m not a fan. As for your defense of the monopolistic subsidiaries of the Democratic party that popularly and mistakenly called “unions,” you fail to defend the unfair, budget-busting, irrational greed of public “unionized” employees and politicians to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else in society: the poor, senior citizens, children, young people. New Jersey teachers, for example, contribute nothing to their and their families health insurance… for life! That is great work if you can get it.

But, as you very well know, my position on unions is not in-sync with either party. I have consistently advocated for a return to CT’s “right to join” law, which, in practice, meant more unions, more militant unions, and greater fairness to workers and taxpayers.

The sad part in all this anti-anti-monopolistic public employee “union” talk is that Republicans, chief among them the always erudite Gov. Chris Christie, are the only ones trying to make sure the pension obligations will be kept by putting them back on a sound actuarial footing. If President Obama and his fellow collectivists had their way, the entire system would collapse, leaving no money for anyone.

Here is Christie, in his own words, (transcription from AEI remarks):

“You’ll have folks tell you that every bit of federal spending is absolutely necessary and laudatory. It’s not. And in fact some of it’s not even laudatory, let alone necessary. But we have to bring a new approach and new discipline to this. And when people say that you can’t tackle these big problems, look at what we’re doing on pensions and benefits. Pensions and benefits are the equivalent of federal entitlements at the state level. They are no different. They have no more vocal constituency at the federal level than they do at the state level. Take my word for it. I rolled out my pension and benefit reform in September on a Tuesday, and then that Friday I went to the firefighters’ convention in Wildwood, New Jersey. 7,500 firefighters at 2:00 on a Friday afternoon – I think you know what they had for lunch. And I rolled out a very specific pension and benefit reform proposal. On pensions: raise the retirement age, eliminate COLAs, increase the amount employees have to contribute to their pension every year. And roll back a nine percent increase that was given to them by a Republican governor and a Republican legislature and they had no way to pay for it. Those four reforms would take our current pension system which is underfunded by $54 billion dollars and in thirty years cut it in half to $28 billion dollars. Real reform getting us on the glide path to solvency. You can imagine how that was received by 7,500 firefighters. As I walked into the room and was introduced. I was booed lustily. I made my way up to the stage, they booed some more. I got to the microphone, they booed some more. So I said, come on you can do better than that, and they did! They did. And then I said to them – I took away the prepared notes I had for the speech – I actually took them off of the podium, crumpled them up and threw them on the ground, so they could see that I would. And I said, here’s the deal: I understand you’re angry, and I understand you’re frustrated, and I understand you feel deceived and betrayed. And the reason you feel all the things is because you have been deceived and you have been betrayed. And for twenty years, governors have come into this room and lied to you. Promised you benefits that they had no way of paying for, making promises they knew they couldn’t keep, and just hoping that they wouldn’t be the man or women left holding the bag. I understand why you feel angry and betrayed and deceived by those people. Here’s what I don’t understand. Why are you booing the first guy who came in here and told you the truth? See, there is no political advantage to me coming into that room and telling the truth. The way we used to think about politics and unfortunately the way I fear they’re thinking about politics still in Washington DC. See, the old playbook says lie, deceive, obfuscate and make it to the next election. You know, there’s a study that says by 2020, New Jersey is one of eleven states whose pension could be bankrupt. And when I told a friend of mine about that study, he said to me, well wait. By 2020, you won’t be governor. What the hell do you care? That’s the way politics has been practiced in our country for too long and practiced in New Jersey for too long. So I said to those firefighters, you may hate me now. But fifteen years from now, when you have a pension to collect because of what I did, you’ll be looking for my address on the internet so you can send me a thank you note.”

“I shudder to think how many Town employees would have been ‘let go’ by Miron if not for unions. All of them?” – Jez, my position is pro-worker freedom and pro-union, no less than it is pro-Constitution and pro-Republican. You and Phineast need to reexaime your first principles.

Phineast is a Republican and thus supports Mr. Kelly no matter how egregiously wrong his policies are. If a Democrat proposed identical polices, Phineast would oppose them.

Jez, you are a Democrat and thus support “unions” no matter how egregiously wrong their abuses are, from protecting mediocre and outright criminal teachers to fleecing taxpayers with unsustainable pension schemes (albeit this was only possible due to the all-too-willing politicians on the other side of the negotiating table).

In both cases, willful ideological blindness leads to positions that are indefensible. Unsurprisingly, what I have written stands uncontested, no less successfully refuted, by either you or Phineast.

portia-I will go point by point at a later time as I am doing the reference work trying to understand your point. Actually I was a lifetime independent until 1 and a half years ago. So that is not why I agree with Mr. Kelly. And for the record- I never said I agreed with everything, but considering he has only been in the senate for a month I have to give him credit for addressing the things that the constituents asked him to. We have had Terry Backer doing his own “thing” in Hartford for years and the only people that have benefited are the ones on the “soundkeeper” payroll. He has addressed minimal things-Larry Miller and Harkins when he was up there at least addressed issues pertinent to the town’s well being. They may not have been successful but the addressed it all the same.
When I am done with my comparisons I will come back and comment.
You said you held office…exactly how much did you cost the taxpayers?????? Or better yet what did you accomplish that was a savings to the taxpayers. Judging from your posts you are an attorney-so I would be willing to bet you cost us far more than you saved us.

‘Isn’t it desirable to clean
– up the slums?’
(dropping the context of what happens to those
in the next income bracket)

WOULDN’T IT BE BETTER TO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOWER
INCOME BRACKET TO RAISE INCOME, STANDARD OF LIVING, (QL)
QUALITY of LIFE, and PAY MORE
– INCOME TAX
– SALES TAX
– PROPERTY TAX
– Because THEY COULD NOW DO SO, WITH HIGHER INCOMES?

—’Isn’t it desirable to have beautiful, planned cities, all of
one harmonious style?’

NOT NECESSARILY – What of the creations of I M PEI, FRANK LLOYD
WRIGHT, A. G. EIFFEL, and others?
Would FASHION GO BACK TO WHITE SHIRTS?
WILL ALL HOUSES LOOK LIKE LEVITTOWN?
WOULD EVERYONE THINK the SAME THOUGHTS – believe the same things?

(dropping the context of whose choice of style is to
be forced on the home builders)

—’Isn’t it desirable to have an educated public?’

(dropping the context of who will do the educating, what will be
taught, and what will happen to dissenters)

I AM A DISSENTER.
The FEDS, STATE, and TEXT BOOK MAKERS create ED CONTENT, so far!
The POLITICAL CONTROLLERS get disproportionate jobs for Friends and
Family. (Aren’t Burturla’s, Florek’s + Proto’s wives teachers/educators?)

—’Isn’t it desirable to liberate the artists, the writers, the composers
from the burden of financial problems and leave them free to create?’
(dropping the context of such questions as: which artists, writers
and composers?
—chosen by whom?
—at whose expense?
—at the expense of the artists, writers and composers who have no
political pull and whose miserably precarious incomes will be taxed
to ‘liberate’ that privileged elite?)

THE PRIVATE SECTOR RAP, HIP HOP, ROCK, HEAVY METAL and OTHERS
BECAME the REAL DRUG PUSHERS of the MEDIA / GOVERNMENT Complex
which benefits from WAR / CRIME / DRUG TRAFFIC.
– In the late 80s, I was mocked as FAT HAPPY & DUMB by SHRINERS in the
Academy awards, including well known artists, in a way I know exists among
the SCRIBES ….. All of a sudden, they all realized they were COKE WHORES,
DRAG QUEENS, GAY – ALLIES, and their DEVIANT BELIEFS and LIFE STYLE of the
BEATIFUL PEOPLE was supremely SELF DESTRUCTIVE.
> In WW II the military took over the Media. They never left, despite the
Fronts of the people on the rolling credits.
> The Medici knew how to cultivate art and propogate higher standards.

—’Isn’t science desirable?[‘]….
ARTS and SCIENCE are like PEANUT BUTTER and JELLY:
LITERATURE and MATH are part of ARTS and SCIENCE!
Where would humanity be without people like?

PORTIA: “Phineast is a Republican and thus supports Mr. Kelly no matter
how egregiously wrong his policies are.
If a Democrat proposed identical polices, Phineast would oppose them.

Jez, you are a Democrat and thus support “unions” no matter how
egregiously wrong their abuses are, from protecting mediocre and
outright criminal teachers to fleecing taxpayers with unsustainable
pension schemes
(albeit this was only possible due to the all-too-willing
politicians on the other side of the negotiating table).”

“In both cases, willful ideological blindness leads to positions
that are indefensible.”

GEORGE: Occasionally PHIN and JEZE step out of their ideological
comfort zones and will nail “some” people, they approved of.
Example?
HARKINS.

PORTIA: “Unsurprisingly, what I have written stands uncontested,
no less successfully refuted, by either you or Phineast.”

GEORGE: THAT’S A CHALLENGE to PHIN and JEZE.

======= I have to hand PORTIA this one.

Pensions and benefits are the equivalent of federal entitlements
at the state level. They are no different.

(If they were not abused and were defined Contribution.)

They have no more vocal constituency at the federal level than
they do at the state level.

Take my word for it. I rolled out my pension and benefit reform
in September on a Tuesday, and then that Friday I went to the
firefighters’ convention in Wildwood, New Jersey.
7,500 firefighters at 2:00 on a Friday afternoon
– I think you know what they had for lunch.

(BUD? BEER goes right thru you – it doesn’t stop for color change)

And I rolled out a very specific pension and benefit reform proposal.

On pensions: raise the retirement age, eliminate COLAs, increase
the amount employees have to contribute to their pension every
year. And roll back a nine percent increase that was given to them
by a Republican governor and a Republican legislature and they had
no way to pay for it.

Those four reforms would take our current pension system which
is underfunded by $54 billion dollars and in thirty years cut it in
half to $28 billion dollars.

Real reform getting us on the glide path to solvency.

You can imagine how that was received by 7,500 firefighters.

As I walked into the room and was introduced.
I was booed lustily.
I made my way up to the stage, they booed some more.
I got to the microphone, they booed some more.
So I said, come on you can do better than that, and they did!
They did.
And then I said to them – I took away the prepared notes
I had for the speech – I actually took them off of the podium,
crumpled them up and threw them on the ground,
so they could see that I would.

—

And I said, here’s the deal:

I understand you’re angry,
and I understand you’re frustrated,
and I understand you feel deceived and betrayed.

And the reason you feel all the things
is because you have been deceived
and you have been betrayed.

And for twenty years,
governors have come into this room and lied to you.

Promised you benefits that they had no way of paying for,
making promises they knew they couldn’t keep,
and just hoping that they wouldn’t be the man or women
left holding the bag.

I understand why you feel angry
and betrayed
and deceived by those people.

Here’s what I don’t understand.
Why are you booing the first guy
who came in here and told you the truth?

See, there is no political advantage to me
coming into that room and telling the truth.

(Much like GEORGE for 7 years, warning about ENTRAPPMENT!)

The way we used to think about politics
and unfortunately the way I fear they’re thinking about politics
still in Washington DC.

See, the old playbook says lie, deceive, obfuscate
and make it to the next election.

Would someone pass this along to Murrays/Ross, McNeil, Hurley, etc.?
They know they are part of a scam and use justifications and rationalize
what their partners on RTC + DTC have done to the people of this town.
NOTE: how much certain LAWYERS and FINANCIAL people benefit compared
to even the highest union pensioners.

I spoke to a RANK PERSON, very recently retired, who told me the PENSIONS
were being paid by future PAYERS. That defines a PONZI SCHEME.
He also claimed his group always had the same calculations.
Maybe Revised contracts say that, but the TRAIL refutes it!

You know, there’s a study that says by 2020,
New Jersey is one of eleven states whose pension
could be bankrupt.
And when I told a friend of mine about that study,
he said to me, well wait.

By 2020, you won’t be governor.
What the hell do you care?

That’s the way politics has been practiced in our country
for too long and practiced in New Jersey for too long.

(GEORGE: EVEN PHIN + JEZE can’t disagree with that sentence!)

So I said to those firefighters, you may hate me now.
But fifteen years from now, when you have a pension
to collect because of what I did,

you’ll be looking for my address on the internet
so you can send me a thank you note.”

GEORGE: Sorry PORTIA, only people with a sense of self respect
would even consider doing that. You know PATRIOTIC Americans
who care about their fellow citizens.
The FILE and RANK know the TRUTH.
They would BRAVE BULLETS and FIRE …. but NOT PEER PRESSURE,
and step up to do the RIGHT THINGS, you know, UPHOLD their OATH,
practice what they preach, do the FIDUCIATY CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY,
and life up to the FLAGS they wear on U N I F O R M S, which promises
E Q U A L PROTECTION of the LAW and L I B E R T Y and J U S T I C E for
all …. All … ALL … A L L !!!
Not for SOME ?
Not for JUST the Politically connected !!

Please GOOGLE – “RED SKELTON Pledge of Allegiance”

Very few on the RTC or DTC understand the concept.
A couple do and have.

Phineast, while I’m sure you’re still diligently digging to counter my point-by-point critique of Senator Kelly’s wasteful and inappropriate spending of other people’s (our) money, in the interest of time, why don’t we focus on Kevin Kelly’s paucity of basic integrity?

I noted last week that the best parts of Kelly’s otherwise appalling Feb. 3rd Stratford Star column, “Shaping our state with constituent ideas,” were pilfered from a Jan. 7th column by Senator Kevin WItkos (R-8).

This past week’s column, ironically titled “Haven’t we learned from past mistakes?,” owes another unpaid debt of acknowledgment to Senator WItkos. Kevin Kelly, as that other perpetual political plagiarist, President Obama’s VP Biden, seems incapable of learning from his past mistakes.

“There are many other cost-saving initiatives that I have not personally introduced this session but will support. Commonsense policies that eliminate waste by consolidating state agencies, engage private companies that can perform public duties at a lower cost, or polices that place moratoriums on the creation of new government programs are all proposals that will benefit our state long-term. State government has simply grown beyond taxpayers’ ability to pay for it, and we need to reverse this trend.

As I work to improve our district and state, I do so with Connecticut’s weakened economy in mind. I am committed to passing legislation that aides our families and businesses while reducing state government and spending. If you would like information about a bill or tracking a bill, I encourage you to visit the Connecticut General Assembly’s website at http://www.cga.ct.gov, or contact my office at 800.842.1421 or kevin.witkos@cga.ct.gov.”

Now compare with what Senator Kelly is supposed to have written at the conclusion of “his” Feb. 3rd column:

“There are many other cost-saving initiatives that I have not personally introduced this session but will support. Common sense policies that eliminate waste by consolidating state agencies, engage private companies that can perform public duties at a lower cost, or polices that place moratoriums on the creation of new government programs are all proposals that will benefit our state long-term. State government has simply grown beyond taxpayers’ ability to pay for it, and we need to reverse this trend.

As I work to improve our district and state, I do so with Connecticut’s weakened economy in mind. I am committed to passing legislation that reduces government while protecting our quality of life for generations to come. Again, as many of the best ideas for legislation start with you and your families, I welcome and encourage your feedback.”

How about another? Here is an excerpt of Senator Wltkos’s Feb. 21st column, “Is it a budget, or a road well traveled?”:

“Gov. Malloy has proposed $1.5 billion in new taxes — one of the largest tax increases in state history (the road well traveled in Connecticut’s financial history). The income tax, sales tax, gas tax and everything in between would be subject to an increase — harming families, costing the state jobs and sending a message that government is not accountable to you, the taxpayer.

And what do these increases mean for so many of us at home? They equate to taxes on the Tylenol we buy, taxes on our yoga classes and haircuts, taxes on the Saturday morning car wash, and more taxes on the gas we use to get to work. August back-to-school shopping would cost a little more going forward if the governor’s plan to eliminate tax free week passes. Additionally, if you clip coupons, you’re still going to be taxed on the original amount of the item(s) before the discount is given. And if his plan to eliminate the $500 property tax credit is passed, taxpayers will feel an even larger burden every April (http://www.foothillsmediagroup.com/articles/2011/02/21/opinion/doc4d62907475e19591003773.txt?viewmode=fullstory).”

Now compare to what Senator Kelly treated us to in “his” Mar. 3rd Stratford Star column:

“Gov. Malloy’s budget calls for raising the income tax, sales tax, gas tax and everything in between, harming families, costing the state jobs and sending the message that our government is not responsible or accountable.

Many have asked how these increases affect our daily lives. Well, they equate to taxes on the Tylenol we buy, taxes on our families’ haircuts, taxes on the weekend car wash stop, and more taxes on the gas we use driving to work. The governor even wants to tax our August back-to-school shopping trip. It you clip coupons to save money at the grocery store, you would now be taxed on the original amount of the item(s) before the discount is given. And, if his plan to eliminate the $500 property tax credit is passed, more than 900,000 taxpayers will feel an even larger burden each April.”

The similarities are striking, aren’t they? Senator Kelly’s plagiarism is conduct unbecoming his stature as an officer of the court and an elected official. His constituents deserve better. At a minimum, we deserve an explanation for this blatant and repeated dishonesty as well as the aforementioned hypocritical proposals. Does Kevin Kelly really think no one would notice how everything on his legislative agenda would grow state government while (in a stolen phrase) he bemoans how state government is already “beyond taxpayers’ ability to pay for it”?!

As for your humble servant’s record, I do not understand its relevance to Senator Kelly’s misdeeds. After all, I am not the one legislating that when individuals reach age 65 they become enfeebled children, wholly controlled by and dependent upon lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats for their survival. No, I think that “our” seniors belong to themselves and that to assert otherwise is to deny them their dignity.

If the only defense of Kevin Kelly is one that involves accusing me, without a scintilla of evidence, of being a Democrat (laughable) and wasting taxpayer money (to the contrary, money was made), he is in worse shape than even I supposed.

Maybe you should copy and paste this on the his web site and ask Kevin about this. Or send in a live letter to the papers…..
Who ever is doing his publicity writing is obviously working for more than one person…
Actually- haven’t had time to go point by point….but I’ll get to it eventually.

Actually Jim you did far more than waste taxpayer money-you stole it, in my humble opinion, and made payoffs to your “friends” and of course we can’t forget your “family”. Ranks right up there with your news conference……
the spots you have will never change…the tarnish will just get darker.

BURTURLA + KELLY were TWO of the MOST CONNECTED to STRATFORD’S
POLICE DEPARTMENT RANK

> Father of the BURTURLAS’ retired as a CAPTAIN in 1985
> Mother of KELLY was Police Chief MOSSMAN’S Secretary and formerly
on the Stratford TAX BOARD, intimately knowing assets and formats?
> KELLY is bro-in-Law to Esq. K Williams, who was on Charter Revision # 1
> ex-CT. StateTrooper Tom Moore bro-in-Law is ex-Stratford Police Chief
Michael Imbro.
> ex-CT. State Trooper John Burturla is Stratford Police Chief
> CT. State Trooper Anthony Schirillo is Stratford Police Liaison to the
State Police. former Town Councilor and former Dem Town Committee
Chairman.

Considering the 1996 Defined Benefit Pension was created specifically
for the existing Police and the way the settlement worked out, can any
one explain the differences between

COPS and ROBBERS?
IN-LAWS and OUT-LAWS?

– So far, no one has come forward about local relatives of GAVIN, MALLOY,
or the B UTTER NUTS.

– I have a political belief of the MENS RHEA, TIMING, ANIMUS, POSITION,
DISPARATE TREATMENT, likely violations of multijurisdictional laws, rules,
regulations, codes, and ordinaces about all of the above and many more.

– Unfortunately I am also the key to some mitigation and exculpation for
certain SEPTIC SLIMEYS where Stratford & USA needs a POLITICAL ENEMA!

–

2001 – 2002 I worked for ALLOY engineering
m ALLOY
m IRON

I have been moved around like a chess piece as have these others.

This includes many in my family, who are unaware.
This includes many local political actors, who do not believe.

Interestingly many Judges in CT “happen” to have the same last name
as ranking people in various NY, NJ, CT, RI, and other area MAFIA
LEADERS who “happened” to become leaders.

The CIA / MILITARY needed COPS and ROBBERS in WW II to control
DOMESTIC SECURITY both above and outside the Law.

Absolute power ….

PLANNING
OPERATIONS

Tools, abilities, and technologies improved geometrically, which are
analoguos to those who arranged marriages without people being
aware they are/were being manipulated, and are used to the MASSES
being moved for the will of the psychotically and emotionally sick who
control every thing.

“Actually Jim you did far more than waste taxpayer money-you stole it”

I do not disagree with this in the slightest. Simply re-read the calls for a forensic audit of the Town Budget on these pages. As far as I know, no attempt has been made to claw back the nearly $250,000 he stole on his last day in office. Lord knows how much he stole before that.

I do want to clarify one thing however. Portia is NOT Jim Miron…nor any Miron nor any friend of any Miron. For one thing, Portia can read & write.

Portia,

As for Kelly, remember the choice? Miron or Kelly? This is what happens when the RTC or DTC are in total control of the election process. Until voters start electing independents this will be our fate.

Who profited the most from whatever the name of this BLOG is?
HINT? They are LAW deGREED!

Who were on Charter Revision Commissions and also ex-Town Attorneys
and members of the Town Council and BoE?

Jeze … have you noticed.
NO BLACKS or HISPANIC or people of COLOR among (R) on the Town
Council or BoE?

Last woman Republicans on Town Council were Debbie Rose and Sandra
Zalik. Republicans have run and won with wives of RTC. But then a wife
can’t testify against her husband ….. can she? 😉
Unless they are divorced? 8)

Links for Stratford Information

Town Links

Note to New Readers

Anyone with an opinion is entitled and invited to post here.
Rules:
Anonymity will be maintained unless there are multiple usernames from the same IP address. Irrelevant or profane posts may be edited for content. Personal attacks or threats to private citizens will be deleted and the user will be banned from the site.
If you wish to contact the editor privately you may do so at: jezebel.anonymous@gmail.com